(f) A agrees to sell to B “my white horse for the rupees five hundred or one thousand rupees.” There is nothing to show which of the two prizes was to give. The agreement is not done. In the agreement on the sale of real estate, it is essential that the land to be surrendered be clearly mentioned in the contract, as well as the correct khasra number, and the setting of the sale price should not be set at a later date. Any form of uncertainty about the identification of land and prices imposed will cancel the contract. In the case of William Graham v. Krishna Chandra Dey,[8] the contract was declared totally indeterminate and uncertain in determining the land for sale because of the five Khasra numbers mentioned by the party from the same country. In addition, Surendra Kumar Gupta v. Narayan Ram [9] found that a sales agreement could not be explicitly enforced if it had been cancelled due to uncertainty. But at the same time, in the case of S.R. Varadaraja Reddiar against Francis Xavier Joseph Periaria,[10] the mere absence of the investigation number, boundaries or location of the property under the agreement did not render the contract ineffective, as the parties were fully aware of the details of the property for sale under the contract and were therefore sure of the identity of the property. In another case of Deojit v Pitambar,[11] the co-contractor was the occupant of a property and a loan was executed by them, their property being presumed to be considered a guarantee with all interests and rights. But this assumption was very vague because the fact that a simple resident of the place was not sufficient to establish with certainty that the overly hypothetical property was the same as the property in which they lived.

The agreement on the property was therefore cancelled. If the parties qualified as true owners of the property, the determination of the property would have been certain. 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. The Court did not replace its own clause with that contained in the agreement, but interpreted the meaning of the words used, as they are interpreted by a reasonable third party. However, when two clients withdrew in the past three years, the company attempted to recover commissions, but the consultant argued that the refund clause of the agreement was invalidated by uncertainties because it had not clearly defined how to calculate the amount to be repaid. But the courts will not undertake to provide defects or to remove ambiguities according to their own conceptions of what is reasonable, because it would not be to impose a contract by the parties, but to conclude a new contract for them. A contract would not be vague if it put in place mechanisms to determine its duration.

In Damodhar Tukaram Mangalmurtiand /Staat Bombay [9], the extension clause contained a provision stating that “subject to as fair and equitable an application as the lessor must decide,” “the application is subject to such a fair and equitable application.”