The Best Return for KDR Shareholders, page-57

I don't know if you've read the Anaconda case (which Freehold provided a link to) aussieman, but in that case, in which two of the three judges (and so a majority) decided a contract existed, once they had decided a contract had been made, they were willing to go to some pretty (in my opinion) extreme lengths, to make sure that neither party was deprived of the benefits of the contract as agreed.

I don't believe a court will find there is a contract in this case, like they did in Anaconda, (in Anaconda) there was actually a statement saying "I, David Prentice .. do hereby agree to accept the terms and conditions set out above" - which made it extremely clear something had been agreed. I think KDR's statements to the market that there is no agreement and that prior to November MZN hadn't themselves alleged there was make it extremely unlikely they've signed something like Prentice did.

But, if the court does agree MZN has been transferred lithium rights, the court very well might, go to some considerable trouble to either read in implied terms that would require KDR do everything reasonable to give MZN the benefit of those promised rights, or at least (more likely) require KDR to go back to negotiation with MZN to determine what is a reasonable compensation. If specific performance (forcing the parties to carry out the agreement - and to work out an agreement in detail) is impossible the court can still consider damages - and those could, in theory be considerable.