Another option is «Subject to Board Approval» This is often used when the final agreement between the parties is subject to an internal approval process. It`s helpful to make sure the person you`re negotiating with understands the limits of the negotiator`s internal authority. Identifying the «Without Bias» correspondence has an entirely different effect; it confers a privilege on correspondence, so that it is not admissible in court. If the other lawyer accepts the terms of a non-biased offer in open correspondence, a binding settlement offer is created. It is therefore important that you label any correspondence without prejudice as contrary to the treaty. Subsequently, The Edge Group and Jack Road Investments participated in the negotiations on the license agreement. Jack Road Investments provided various documents to the buyer and The Edge Group paid 1% of the purchase price. The Senior Judge noted that with respect to the question of whether an interim agreement was binding, there were well-established authorities.2 In the Masters High Court decision against Cameron, the judge referred to the three classes.3 In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal stated that the procedural judge was right and that the offer to purchase was not a binding agreement. As the judge explained, «When a person enters into an agreement on behalf of a company subject to approval by the board of directors, he specifies that he does not have the power or at least that he is not willing to bind the company, unless the authorization is granted. Given that directors are required to make an independent judgment as to whether the transaction is in the best interests of the business, it is very difficult to see how, in such circumstances, there could be an implied promise that will bind the business by granting the authorization or by the fact that it is a mere formality or a «stamp exercise». One claims that there is a binding contract, the other does not. The Victorian Court of Appeal recently rendered its decision in The Edge Development Group Pty Ltd v Jack Road Investments Pty Ltd.1 The case concerned a dispute over whether a letter of offer signed by both parties was a binding contract for the sale of real estate.

. . .