18 In my view these objective circumstances establish that on 23 February 2011 the parties agreed as between themselves to a contract for the sale of the horse for a total sum of $1 million payable by $750,000 by 23 February 2011 and by five equal instalments over five yeas of $50,000 with no nomination of a mare to be put to stud or other entitlements. By 23 February 2011 Mr Mithen had obtained a copy of the stallion agreement. An objective observer would conclude that the parties were in agreement about the subject matter of the contract (namely the sale of an interest in the horse) and about the fundamental terms upon which they had agreed to contract (namely the payment of $750,000 plus $250,000 over five years). The seller was willing to sell and had advertised the fact. The purchaser was willing to purchase and had initiated contact in response to the advertisement, had prepared heads of agreement to secure commitment, had publicly announced the fact of sale, had effected insurance, had informed the vendor that insurance had been effected, had finalised outstanding terms by the email exchange on 23 February 2011 and had paid $750,000. The entire course of dealings between the parties were to reach a binding agreement upon the sale of a 5% interest in the horse. The plaintiffs, through Mr Mithen, were keen to secure a binding agreement. The heads of agreement was not intended to be a sham and had the language of a binding contract. Indeed it provided for a cooling off period reserving to the purchaser the right not to be bound if they decided not to proceed within a specified period of time. It had been Mr Mithen who at their meeting on 27 January had impressed upon Ms Massey the urgency of having everything sorted out by 1 February 2011. The need to see the stallion agreement meant that the heads of agreement may have required change and, therefore, that it could not provide the concluded terms of their bargain. The failure to pay and the delay in confirming the agreement until the discussion on 20 February 2011 also created uncertainty about the plaintiffs' commitment however, as at 20 February 2011, the plaintiffs, through Mr Mithen, were still eager to secure the bargain he had sought to reach for the plaintiffs through the heads of agreement. Mr Mithen and Ms Massey discussed the matters which had not been fully resolved (about the nomination, free return and the alternative of a proportion of the advertised fee) and on 23 February 2011 reached agreement for payment of $250,000 over five years in addition to the immediate payment of $75,000.