(i)- The conditions consistent with the Court`s idea of the reasonable conditions that will be provided to fill any case of omission or disagreement; In Ashburn Anstalt v. Arnold , an agreement to rent a store in a prime location was not uncertain, as it could be established by expert evidence, since the term is often used in the respective real estate business. An agreement may be uncertain, either because the terms it contains are exaggerated or vague, or because it is incomplete. The general rule is that if the terms of an agreement are vague or vague and cannot be established with sufficient certainty of the intention of the parties, there is no enforceable contract that is legally enforceable. § 29 contains the meaning of an agreement that should be clear at first sight, as in Kovuru Kalappa Devara v. Kumar Krishna Mitter , but the effect can be given to the contract if its meaning is found with sufficient clarity. Article 29 sets out the meaning of an agreement that should be clear at first sight, as shown in the case of Kovuru Kalappa Devara v. Kumar Krishna Mitter , but the effect may be accorded to the contract if its meaning is found with reasonable clarity. If this is not possible, the contract would not be enforceable. Simple difficulties of interpretation are not considered vague. The principle may be formulated when a party seeking compensation for breach of contract in a court must be able to identify the obligation with sufficient precision to justify the remedy. .