These principles were recently applied in Plaaskem (Pty) Ltd v Nippon Africa Chemicals (Pty) Ltd  SCA 73. In the present case, the question was whether a contract between two parties contained a tacit provision that one of the parties could terminate the contract within a reasonable time. The written agreement between the parties regulated the import of agricultural chemicals. Ground Lease remains silent about the borrower`s ability to provide insurance income to a lender. The prices of the wine delivered under the distribution contract were calculated in accordance with the sales contract. The parties were aware that the prices of bottled wine were Pernod`s book values, which reflected Pernod`s costs of production and did not contain excise duties. Lion`s financial modelling, and thus the expected profit and valuation, provided that Lion would remove excise duties on wine purchased by Pernod from the outset of the distribution agreement. 1. It must be reasonable and cheap; (2) It is necessary to confer commercial efficiency on the contract, so that no time limit is provided for if the contract is valid without it; (3) It must be sufficiently obvious that “this is self-evident”; (4) it must be clearly expressed; 5. It may not oppose any express declaration of the contract. A recent pernod example appointed Lion distributor of certain wine brands from November 1, 2010. The distribution agreement lasted only until the settlement of the sale of these brands to Lion on December 22, 2010. .