Briggs J rejected that argument which, in its view, is contrary to the manifest importance of the relevant provisions of the agreement. He advanced the respondents` arguments that the agreement is a clear and precise document, elaborated over many years, in which the impact of the terms (as proposed in alternatives (a) and (b) is unnecessary and undesirable, both because of its clarity of importance and because of the different options offered by ISDA, by which the parties make specific arrangements for certain matters through additional provisions in the timetable or confirmation (e.g. B automatic early termination in the event of delay). The model clauses will be included in the timetable for a new ISDA framework agreement. . . .