In United Group, the NSW Court of Appeal directly questioned whether Coal Cliff, which allowed the applicability of agreements in certain circumstances, or Walford, which did not, should lead the development of Australian law. Allsop P., who delivered the Court of Appeal`s verdict, appears to be approaching the issue to settle it definitively by stating that he "did not find Lord Ackner`s views at Walford v Miles convincing."  In the end, the Court found that: (i) unworkable undertakings/rights arising from the parties` postponement of their contractual terms agreement (the parties being free to accept or not to agree to the matter) and the defendants, on the other hand, asserted that the clear assertion in the timetable that the conditions were indicative and would facilitate discussion is contrary to the applicants` assertion. It was argued that the provisions of the agreement were in such a way that they did not have the necessary guarantee to be enforceable. In any event, the courts decide on their own facts. However, they are hesitant to consider as null and void a clause that "should be valid", in particular, if one of the parties has benefited from the partial benefit or has imputed it to the contract.5, a clause is therefore not applicable simply because it requires additional agreement from the parties, if the courts can resolve the uncertainty, for example: the judgment confirms that the agreements can be binding, if the lack of detail is not sufficiently important for the work of the contract so that the object is not easily identifiable and the parties intend to create legal relations despite the lack of security.  Ibid., See also item III B 1 relating to the subject of interim negotiation agreements. It appears that the parties to trade, whether the courts decide in an authoritarian manner or when the negotiations in good faith are enforceable, will continue to include them in their treaties. Decisions against enforcement may be undermined by the need to be an active participant in the international business world, where "more and more contracts contain bargaining clauses in good faith."  Australia`s potential for isolation on this issue is manifested not only in the favourable American jurisprudence, but also in what might be perceived as a tendency to be imposed in England, despite Walford. In petromec, Longmore LJ, although not necessary on its merits, criticized the view that, in all cases, Walford had imposed a blanket ban on the declaration of enforceable force. He justified this decision by the fact that there was no explicit bargaining agreement in Walford and cited Lord Steyn`s hope that this matter would be reconsidered by the House of Lords.  Longmore LJ also stressed the economic relevance of the transaction, as it is relevant that the agreement was drawn up by City lawyers and stated that it would be "strong to declare inapplicable a clause in which the parties were deliberately and explicitly repossessed".
 As a result, there is at least some judicial unease with the non-application approach, although there appears to be no hope, at least for now, that Walford will be "well established" due to the confirmation by Lords Neuberger, Phillips, Rodger, Walker and Collins that the rule of negotiating agreements is "well established" ... and remains an important principle.  Although these remarks were made to the Privy Council, it seems unlikely that Walford would be overthrown without a Supreme Court in the United Kingdom, which was constituted in a radically different manner. One aspect of Lord Ackner`s objection to the cause of the good faith bargaining at Walford was "the absence of a clause on the duration [of the undertaking]."  It was therefore not clear when Mr. Miles could be allowed to terminate the negotiations. The importance of delays is illustrated by the close analogy with negative negotiating agreements, known as "lockout agreements," for which one party says it is prepared not to negotiate with a third party.