The Supreme Court`s statement seems to contradict his message. While we believe that the comprehensive contractual clause has no specific origin or specific meaning in Dutch law, it seems to have a general meaning: not to remove the Dutch way of including legal uncertainty in a treaty in the name of adequacy and fairness. So the parties united to prove that the Supreme Court was wrong. Let the other party, and therefore the courts, understand that you want to promote legal certainty by restricting the court`s freedom of interpretation. Is this a guarantee of success? Certainly not. Courts take common sense into account when interpreting a contract. In recent years, the importance of commercial common sense in the interpretation of contractual clauses has changed. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that the starting point is the natural sense of the language used; Commercial common sense cannot be seen as an undervaluation of the importance of the willingness to understand. The courts will only reject the importance of a provision because one of the parties has made a bad case; It is not for the Tribunal to improve the positions of the parties by rewriting the contract9. However, if there are ambiguities and more than one conceive, the Tribunal will choose the interpretation that has the most economical economic meaning, assuming that the parties would not have wanted a non-commercial outcome10.10 This is an assembly of minds with a common intention. and is done through offer and acceptance.
An agreement can be demonstrated by words, behaviours and even, in some cases, silence. The Court held that the purpose of applying the above principles was to determine the presumed intent of the parties. If the Court is not satisfied that the implication would necessarily have been in the minds of both parties, the Tribunal cannot imply a term that has not been explicitly expressed by the parties. Status of court decisions…. Although the highest court of the state generally has the final power to determine the construction and validity of contracts concluded in accordance with state laws, and federal courts are bound by decisions of the highest state court in such cases, this rule does not apply where the contract is the one whose obligation would have been compromised by state law.2078 , the state authority under attack could be confirmed by the mere instrument of a total modification or annulment of the contractual rights at issue by the State Court. Similarly, the highest state court generally has the last power to construct state statutes and determine their validity in relation to the constitution of the Land. 2079 A concept of English common law that must be taken into account for simple contracts, but not for special contracts (contracts by thieves). The court of Currie v Misa  declared the idea of “right, interest, profits, benefits or leniency, damage, loss, liability”. That is why reflection is a promise of something precious given by a pare-all in exchange for something precious that is made by a promise; and in general, the thing of value is goods, money or stock.