A standstill agreement can effectively delay or stop the hostile takeover process if the parties cannot negotiate a friendly agreement. As a result of this construction, the claimant had to breach the clause prohibiting him from initiating proceedings earlier in order to avoid the limitation period. This was obviously nonsense – the court will not interpret a treaty in such a way that a party must breach its terms for the agreement to work. Coulson J. considered that the agreement suspended the time limit, so that at the end of the standstill period, the applicant still had time to initiate proceedings. The Court of First Instance examined the correct approach to the design of the recitals and their interaction with operational concepts in the light of recent developments in the legislation on the interpretation of the contract. In principle, operational provisions are preferable if the recitals and operational provisions of an agreement are clear but not incompatible (Re Moon (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 275). . .