My point is that, since the two are completely separate legal parties, shouldn't such contracts explicitely define what happens if a condition is not met? IANAL

My point is that, since the two are completely separate legal parties, shouldn't such contracts explicitely define what happens if a condition is not met? IANAL, but the way I see contracts, they can never really force people to do anything, instead it's a way to define opportunity costs as clearly as possible so there aren't any uncertainties on the table. It's like SLAs. Well, sure, you can guarantee me 5 nines or whatever - but if it's not defined what you owe me in case you don't make it, that guarantee is worthless to me because then all I can do is suing you and let a judge decide what's to happen after tons of legal expenses. That's what I meant with my assumption that there should be some clear consequences already defined in the contract.