See also https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/ViewDecision?returnUrl=%2feCourtsPortal%2fDecisions%2fSearch%3fsearchText%3dAnaconda%26jurisdiction%3dSC%26advanced%3dFalse&id=e1bc1231-d3cc-0a24-4825-6952002ae449
where an exchange of correspondence was held to be a binding agreement notwithstanding the fuller agreement was contemplated to be agreed at a later time. The difference being that in the Anaconda Nickel matter the exchange of correspondence was sufficient to demonstrate that the parties had agreed to the 'key terms'. That appears to have been where Marindi fell over.
