Beyond rendering an agreement potentially void, what specific, non-obvious consequence can arise from a fundamental lack of 'certainty of terms' regarding critical deliverables within a complex service agreement?

A fundamental lack of 'certainty of terms' regarding critical deliverables within a complex service agreement can lead to the specific, non-obvious consequence of rendering the agreement practically unenforceable, primarily because it becomes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to objectively prove a 'breach of contract' and, consequently, to successfully claim specific legal remedies. 'Certainty of terms' refers to the precision and clarity with which all essential obligations, rights, and performance standards are defined within a contract. When critical deliverables—the essential services, outcomes, or products one party is contractually bound to provide to the other—lack this certainty, their exact scope, quality, or timing is vague or undefined. This ambiguity means that parties will inevitably hold differing interpretations of what constitutes acceptable performance or successful completion. For instance, if a service agreement specifies a deliverable as 'significantly improve operational efficiency' without defining measurable benchmarks like specific cost reductions, process cycle times, or error rate decreases, there is no objective standard to determine if the improvement has occurred or met an agreed-upon level. This lack of objective criteria creates a significant hurdle for legal enforcement. To prove a 'breach of contract'—a failure by one party to fulfill their contractual obligations—the aggrieved party must clearly demonstrate that the other party failed to meet a specific, identifiable term of the agreement. If the critical deliverable itself is ill-defined, proving its non-fulfillment becomes subjective and highly contentious, making it challenging for a court to ascertain whether a breach actually occurred. Furthermore, this uncertainty severely limits the availability of effective legal remedies. A court cannot order 'specific performance'—a mandate compelling a party to fulfill a precise act—if the act itself is vague and undefined. Similarly, quantifying 'damages'—monetary compensation for loss or injury resulting from a breach—becomes speculative and difficult to calculate, as there is no clear benchmark against which to measure the loss incurred from the non-provision of an undefined deliverable. Therefore, even if a contract is not immediately declared void, its practical enforceability for dispute resolution and the recovery of losses is severely compromised.