His honour was to agree with the judge that the fact that a subsequent meeting was necessary to prepare a document to send the complainant`s CEO to the signing meant that no agreement had been reached at the first meeting. However, the discussion of the parties at the first meeting is contrary to the thesis that the act prepared at the second meeting is an offer to be signed by the applicant, which may be accepted or rejected by the respondents. These circumstances may include the behaviour of the parties as well as correspondence and other words used. The circumstances of the environment should not be considered in isolation, but in the light of all other communications – the parties may not be able to resolve the dispute, whether or not there is a binding agreement, by trying to draw from an oral exchange or written a discreet offer and discreet acceptance.  Questions of liability in the event of an error in the conclusion of the contract are excluded from the scope of the Rome I regulation. Article 1, paragraph 2, paragraph (i) excludes from the scope of the regulation the obligations arising from the negotiations prior to the conclusion of the contract. These issues are in fact governed by Article 12 of the Rome II Regulation (864/2007), which states that the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, which arises before the contract was concluded, whether it was concluded or concluded, applies to the contract or the law that would have been applicable at the time the contract was concluded. Article 12 of the Rome II Regulation refers to the applicable law which is defined in the conflict rules of the Rome I Regulation (if any). The Court of Appeal found unanimously that, despite non-compliance with a counter-signature or contract, an agreement had been reached for the payment of a number of the applicants` rights, as agreed at the meeting of 16 November 2012. In a letter to the Court, Justice Ann Lyons stated that the characterizations of the facts by the judges were correct and it is open to the judge to conclude, on the basis of the documents and evidence before him, that, although the parties understood that, although they were subject to the formality of the signing of the act by all parties, the very purpose of the meeting was to obtain a binding agreement between the authorized representatives (CDGs).