In that case, the court considered the termination or convenience clause which stated that the benefits were “provided up to the time of termination and other justified direct costs.” Finally, until the termination date, the contractor was allowed to pay for all the work. This clause is generally as follows: “……… Each party may terminate this contract without cause at any time, after at least thirty (30) days of written communication,…… The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Amritsar Gas Service and Ors; (Supl. (3) 196 1991 CSC (1) 533) has decided that an agreement is revocable by granting a certain days of termination by allowing the parties to terminate the contract without justification, fall into the category of identifiable contracts and, therefore, not be able to benefit from a specific performance of the contract. The only discharge that can be granted to the parties in such a case is compensation for the notice period. The agreement may also limit the possibility of healing an offence. If a party breaks the chords and the first attempt at healing does not work, does the party have a second or third chance of healing? Similarly, the parties could have a number of ways to heal any violations for the duration of an agreement. For example, the agreement could allow each party to heal three times. If Party A violated the agreement three times, but successfully healed each of the three violations, the party used all its healing possibilities.
Many concerns are expressed about the termination of contracts without justification, their validity is often questioned and it is now clear that the termination clause is valid and applicable for convenience. In the business environment, termination clauses define the right to terminate a contract for certain reasons. A change in control protects Part A, which has entered into contracts with Part B, bound from that date by a contract with an unexpected part C that buys Part B, merges with it or otherwise acquires control of Part B.