- Actually, according to the agreement in question, only one party may terminate the agreement without reason and liability (and both in case of breach). Will this go under the so called "reasonableness test" and even survive? How a court will approach the case and the test?

- And secondly, according to the agreement, parties confirm that they are not relying on any understanding, term etc. which is not expressly set out in the agreement; does this mean that other party is bound to the contract to all eternity if the other one does not commit a breach? It does not seem a fair (or just) from my Roman-Germanic perspective... and thus I am quite sure that there may be a some rule or principle... and which goes above the contract text.

On the other hand, the agreement does not say that the other party may not cancel the agreement by notice and within a reasonable period of time, which should be some sort of principle or rule. Is it that in English law?

- What says the law in a case where a particular contract had become unfair or unreasonable to the other party due to a certain contract provision?

- What if the contract party decides not to obey that contract provision, therefore causing a breach of a contract, but actually a one which as such does not cause any damages to the other party (if the parties do not make any business transactions in the future as they are entitled to that)? Is it the principle in the English law and the legal practice that what is to be recovered by way of damages is the loss which the plaintiff has suffered, and not the profit which the defendant has made? Does this render the breach a "safe one" to commit as there is no actual damage?

- Any good books or other resourses I could use here, I already have Michael Furmston's book...

Thanks in advance...