Since many contractual disputes, perhaps the majority, arise from disagreements over the importance of contractual provisions, the interpretation of treaties is an important area. The effect of a contract or obligation is often conditioned on the truth of an acceptance made by the parties on a past or present fact. For example, if Johann and Piet negotiate a contract to buy and sell a painting, Johann may stipulate that he will only make the purchase if the painting is an original rembrandt. They call an expert. If their presumption is confirmed, the contract continues, otherwise the contract will be deleted. Similarly, Fourie vs. CDMO Homes was CDMO`s sale of land adjacent to a river in Fourie, the offer of which was subject to the following condition: that there be pumping rights on the river. Although the parties are not sure whether this is the case, they have reached their agreement on the assumption that the pumping rights are in place. If there is a discrepancy between the true intention and the expressed or perceived intention of the parties, the question of whether or not a legal system is maintained depends on its contractual discourse: is it subjective (oriented towards a real consensus) or is it obvious or objective (centered on the outward appearance of the agreement)?  In the event of a dispute, if one of the parties to the agreement refused to negotiate the future term, that party`s rejection would essentially put the other party in a situation where it would not be able to implement the agreement. However, with compliance with the condition, the contract becomes absolute and has retroactive effect. It dates from the date of the meeting of the agreement, which is then considered from the outset as unconditional.
A condition precedent must be met in its entirety, unless the parties intend that the fulfillment of part of the condition requires the fulfillment of part of the promise. “The main purpose of the interpretation of a treaty,” writes Catherine Maxwell, “is to give effect to the intentions of the parties.”  The main rule is therefore that the common intention of the parties, that is, what both parties intended to do when entering into the contract, must take effect. As Innes J said in Joubert v Enslin, “The golden rule that applies to the interpretation of all treaties is to identify and follow the intention of the parties.”  Therefore, if the contract or the admissible evidence gives a clear indication of the importance of the parties, the court should have that effect. This obligation, which is essentially subjective, is generally considered ideal for the interpretation of the contract. [Citation required] The Supreme Court of Appeal recently had the opportunity to review the validity of an agreement. Over the years, our courts have made great efforts to ensure legal certainty for the parties to contact. To this end, our courts are firm in their approach to contractual disputes: identify the intention of the parties and express that intention. The courts will not dictate the terms of an agreement on behalf of the parties. Under this general rule, an agreement is not applicable, since the Tribunal recognizes the absolute discretion of the contracting parties, whether they agree or disagree. Accordingly, if the parties agree on negotiations for the conclusion of another agreement, such an agreement shall not apply.
The above relates to conditions precedent. It is generally accepted that the principle of fictitious performance can be extended to the fictitious non-performance of a solved condition, although there is no exact Röo-Dutch authority. Release and waiver may be partial or complete. However, the exemption usually involves the exemption of a debtor from the entire contract, whereas the waiver usually concerns only a certain obligation or duration of the contract. The nature of the agreement depends on its content.. . . .