The Enforceability of Escalation Clauses Providing for Negotiations in Good Faith Under English Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Escalation clauses providing for negotiating in good faith have evolved from mere unenforceable agreements to negotiate to agreements that could be enforced under certain conditions. English courts, however, have usually held some of these requirements to be missing which, in turn, precluded the enforcement of escalation clauses. The paper discusses the general idea of these agreements, gives an overview of their treatment before English courts, and emphasises the key elements that warrant their enforceability. Through a comparative analysis of the American and Canadian approaches to good faith, the paper aims to provide clarity on the issue of enforceability. In the author’s view, the recent ruling in Emirates Trading v Prime Mineral, as well as judicial positions held in other common law countries, will inspire English courts to be more lenient in enforcing escalation clauses providing for negotiating in good faith.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".