The above test can be controversial if the parties disagree on what constitutes an “essential provision”. In Bogue v. Bogue (1999 CanLII 3284), the Court of Appeal considered a separating husband and a separating spouse in family proceedings. The wife attempted to impose a settlement agreement, while the husband claimed that there had been no agreement because the parties had not agreed on a release. The Court of Justice ruled as follows: the General Court then turned to the question of implicit concepts. He viewed the governing authorities under implied conditions, including Marks and Spencer, where the Supreme Court confirmed that an implied provision (to a reasonable reader at the time of entering into the contract) must be sufficiently obvious to be obvious or necessary for commercial efficiency. Even something as important as the inclusion of releases can be incorporated a posteriori into a contract. It is a general rule of contract law in Ontario that a contract is entered into when two parties have a “meeting of minds”,that is, they have agreed at the same time to a contract that involves the mutual exchange of a little value (called “consideration”).