Use Cases
Use Case 1:Email negotiations and alleged commercial agreement
Cirrus Real Time Processing Systems Pty Ltd v Jet Aviation Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 85
A dispute arose from commercial discussions and email exchanges connected to a tender arrangement for software and equipment support.
One party argued that the communications created a binding agreement. The Court found there was no intention to create legal relations, partly because key commercial terms were still unresolved and the language used did not clearly show a final
commitment.
The business problem
Not every commercial dispute starts with a signed contract.
Sometimes the problem begins earlier — during the emails, quote revisions, proposal updates, pricing discussions and informal confirmations that happen before or around an agreement.
Later, one party may say:
“We had a deal.”
The other party may say:
“No, we were still negotiating.”
That is when scattered emails, draft documents and unclear versions become a serious business risk.
How Giblet helps
Giblet helps businesses preserve a verifiable proof record of the exact document, communication or agreement version they intend to rely on.
It gives teams a clearer way to show:
what was recorded, when it was recorded, which version was relied on, and whether the evidence has changed since.
This is especially useful when important commercial discussions happen across inboxes, attachments, shared folders and revised proposals.
Use Case 2: When Emails Become the Agreement
In Stellard Pty Ltd v North Queensland Fuel Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 119, a dispute arose over whether an email
exchange created a binding contract for the sale of a roadhouse/service station. The seller argued there was no
binding agreement because the deal was still “subject to contract”. The court found the email exchange could still
amount to a valid and binding agreement.
The business problem
Important agreements do not always live neatly inside the signed PDF.
They often evolve through email chains, replies, confirmations and “approved” messages. Later, if a dispute
occurs, the question becomes:
“Which email, document or version actually created the agreement?”
How Giblet helps
Giblet gives teams a way to preserve a verifiable proof record of the document or communication being relied on at the time it matters.
So instead of searching through inboxes months later, teams can point to a clear proof record showing:what was relied on, when it was recorded, and whether the file has changed since.
Use Case 3: Contract Variations and Building Disputes
A reported Victorian home-building dispute involving Grandeur Homes showed how quickly contract variation issues can become serious. Customers disputed delays, additional costs and whether contract variations justified further payments.
One family said they had already agreed to a $25,000 variation, then later faced a further claim of nearly $60,000. The builder’s lawyers argued the contract price was not fixed and could be altered by variations.
The business problem
Variations are where many agreements start to break down.
A contract may begin cleanly, but then changes appear through:
emails, site instructions, revised drawings, supplier messages, cost increases, verbal approvals and updated scopes.
Later, the dispute is rarely just:
“Was there a contract?”
It becomes:
“What changed, who approved it, which version was relied on, and can we prove it?”
How Giblet helps
Giblet helps businesses create a proof record around important contract versions and agreed changes, especially where variations happen after the original contract is signed.
It gives builders, developers, lawyers, procurement teams and clients a clearer way to preserve evidence before the disagreement starts.
Source
Use Case 4: When Agreements Change After Signing
A signed contract is not always the end of the agreement.
The business problem
In many businesses, the real negotiation continues after the document is signed. Terms are clarified by email. Repayment dates are adjusted. Pricing changes are approved. Project scope moves. Lawyers, suppliers, clients and internal teams continue
making decisions through inboxes, shared folders, WhatsApp messages and follow-up communications.
That is where risk begins.
In a recent Australian case discussed by Clayton Utz, the NSW Supreme Court considered whether email exchanges after mortgage documents were signed could modify the original loan terms. The Court found that the emails showed a mutual
intention to vary terms, including the repayment schedule and interest rate.
The lesson is simple: post-signing communications can matter.
How Giblet Helps
Giblet helps businesses create a verifiable proof record around important agreements and changes after signing. It gives teams a way to preserve what was relied on, when it was recorded, and whether the document or evidence has changed since.
So when a dispute arises months later, the business is not left searching through inboxes trying to reconstruct the truth.
Giblet helps prove the agreement your business actually relied on.
2026