“. If, according to the actual construction of the words they used in the circumstances in which they used them, the parties intend to agree in the future between themselves on an essential matter such as price or rent – on the basis that it remains free to agree or not to agree on this matter – there is no agreement, that the courts can enforce. In the first proceedings, the High Court decided that the applicant had an enforceable right to the provision of counselling services during the first four-year period, but that he was not entitled to that right for another period. The obligation for the parties to agree on the duration of an additional period was not applicable, as it was an agreement that did not contain a “mechanism” or “objective standard” for the Tribunal to “reach a conclusion” on the duration of the extension. .