Dhahani claimed damages for breach of contract against Crasianski and argued that the signed letter and appointment sheet show a binding agreement for each party to do its best for the creation of the fund. Dhahani indicated that the definition sheet defined many important features of the fund, including its scope, investment profile, fund manager, anchor investor, management fees and profit distribution, and that these characteristics meant that each party`s obligations were not sufficiently uncertain to prevent its application and that all outstanding details could be agreed upon at a later date. For obvious reasons, the conclusion of such an agreement would have required the presence and signature of both candidates. Parties wishing to establish legally binding agreements, which are incomplete, must therefore ensure that as many important conditions as possible are agreed and, for those who do not, that there is a very clear mechanism for how the remaining conditions will be agreed in the future. Therefore, the parties objectively intended to be legally bound by the agreement. Crasianski requested a refund of the advance of EUR 312,500 on the grounds that the fund had not been used for the purposes for which it had been advanced. Crasianski submitted that the correspondence sheet and newspapers were merely an agreement of agreement and that such an agreement was not applicable under English law because it was not safe. He also argued that the subjective intent of both parties was that the letters and concept sheets were not binding and that the Tribunal should consider the subjective intentions of the parties and not the intentions of the parties that appeared objective. Dhahani makes it clear that the two issues that need to be considered in deciding whether an incomplete agreement is binding on the parties are: the recent decision of the Dhahani High Court provides a useful insight into how the courts find the balance between the parties to the good deals they conclude while they do not respect agreements that are too uncertain due to the absence of certain conditions. Teare J stated that the intentions of the parties would be objectively assessed and depended “as a reasonable man with knowledge of economics, who would have understood the exchanges between the parties” (Andrew Smith J in Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund – anor v Rouvroy – anor ). He stated that there were several signs that the parties intended to form legal ties: Teare J acknowledged that many of the fund`s important features had been agreed upon at the time the form was signed. However, he also acknowledged that some crucial terms have not yet been used. In particular, he considered that Crasianski wanted advice on the tax consequences of an agreement on the headquarters and the nature of the fund`s structure.