It is common for parties to a contract to act without fully understanding or considering the contractual implications.  When this happens, a dispute can often ensue, and the parties to the contract may find that the terms of the agreement are not what they expected.  This situation arose in Savvy Vineyards 3784 Ltd v Arck Ltd [2015] NZCA 543, where it was argued by Savvy that a contractual obligation existed for the ongoing supply of grapes.  In analysing whether an agreement for the ongoing supply of grapes was reached, the Court of Appeal applied the acid test, whereby it considered that a binding legal contract may be inferred when “viewed as a whole and objectively from the point of view of reasonable persons on both sides, the dealings show a concluded bargain”.  In the Court of Appeal’s view, Arck had acted as if bound to supply grapes in the long term, rather than on an ad hoc basis to supply each year.  Communications between the parties also suggested that the fruit would be onsold “in future years” beyond the expiry of the initial three year period.  The Court of Appeal therefore held that, as a whole, and objectively from the point of view of both sides, a binding contract for the ongoing supply of grapes existed.