Final answer:
Courts may insert a reasonable term into a contract if it appears that the parties intended to create a valid agreement but left a term uncertain or incomplete, to uphold the agreement and maintain its enforceability.
Step-by-step explanation:
If it reasonably appears that the parties intended to make a valid contract, a court may apply the presumption that the parties' intent was to include a reasonable term to rectify any uncertain or incomplete term. This principle is based on the idea that contracts and similar binding agreements should be enforced as they are essential to cooperation and economic growth. Courts recognize that not all contracts may be perfectly drafted, and where the intention of the parties can be reasonably ascertained, the court seeks to uphold the contract by inserting what is seen as a reasonable term to address any ambiguity or omission.
For instance, if two parties enter into an employment agreement, it is based on the presumption that both parties agree to certain terms, like payment for services rendered. If the payment term were somehow left vague, the court may determine what a reasonable payment would be, ensuring that the contractual rights - based on property rights - are enforced and the intent of the parties is preserved. This enforcement plays a critical role in maintaining public confidence in the legal system and in the continuation of transactions that spur economic growth.