In the speech S.R. Varadaraja Reddiar vs. Francis Xavier Joseph Periaria , it was found that while both parties were fully aware of the identity of the property to be conveyed under the agreement, the agreement was not uncertain solely because the agreement did not specify the exact limits, the investigation number or the location whether the identity of the property could be reasonably established. In Mithu Khan vs Pipariya wali  was an agreement on the sale of land with the name of the country, but without its survey number or are not invalid for uncertainty. This article was written by Diva Rai, a student at Symbiose Law School, Noida. In this article, she discusses nullity agreements due to uncertainty in Section 29 of the Treaty of India Act. Section 29 gives the importance of an agreement which, at first glance, should be clear, as demonstrated in Kovuru Kalappa Devara vs. Kumar Krishna Mitter , but the effect can be granted to the contract if its meaning is found with reasonable clarity. If that were not possible, the treaty would not be applicable. Only difficulties of interpretation are not considered vague.
The principle can be formulated as a party that wants to grant a judicial remedy for breach, the obligation must be able to identify the obligation with sufficient precision to justify the appeal. The law thus established is more flexible and recognizes that remedies may require different safeguards. At Deojit v Pitambar , where the accused themselves, as occupiers of a given place, executed a loan for the amount of „our property, with all rights and interests“, the assumption was considered too indeterminate to be reactive. The mere fact that the accused declared themselves residents of a particular place in the loan was not sufficient to declare their property there as the alleged property. If they themselves qualified as owners of certain properties, it would have been reasonable to refer the indeterminate expression to the description. An agreement providing for future pricing by the parties or by a third party can be insured and applies in accordance with Section 29. Such a contract is not cancelled out of uncertainty. However, the High Court of Australia in Hall v Busst  found by a majority that a reasonable amount to cover depreciation was uncertain and therefore unenforceable. In Milnes/Gery , a fair valuation agreement was also considered uncertain. As Lord Wright said in Scammell/Ouston , the court`s purpose is to do justice between the parties and if it is satisfied that there was an indeterminate and indeterminate intention to enter into a contract, then the effect would be given to the intention to consider form and not mere form. In the event of agreement on all the essential conditions, the Tribunal may not take into account an incidental deviation clause on the grounds that it makes no sense, as it does not make sense in Nicolene Ltd/Simmonds. However, this rule cannot apply to a significant term as seen in Kingsley- Keith, Ltd.
v. Glynn Brothers (Chemicals), Ltd. or subject to a war or force majeure clause or an option on agreed terms. The courts are reluctant to cancel a contract for the uncertainty of a provision that would have a legal effect, as indicated in Brown/Gould . It was stressed that things must always be balanced, that human relations, without violating the essential principles, should be treated in the most effective way possible and that the law cannot be accused of destroying negotiations.