Article 12 of the Rome II Regulation refers to the applicable law, as defined in the conflict-of-laws rules of the Rome I Regulation (where applicable). In accordance with Article 72(1) of the Civil Code, the contract is concluded as soon as the parties agree on the provisions under discussion when two parties negotiate the conclusion of a contract. Thus, Polish legislation cannot claim that a contract has been concluded if the parties have reached agreement on only part of the contractual provisions to be negotiated, even if they are part of the essential provisions (Paragraph 154(1) BGB). However, other jurisdictions treat this issue differently (e.g. B Article 1583 of the Belgian Civil Code). As you will see in the excerpts below, entering into a transaction or other multi-party agreement is to conclude/conclude/agree/process. The fundamental answer to your question is therefore “yes”, “contract concluded” means that it has been agreed. In strict terms, if you are talking about the event (i.e. the meeting of the agreement) once it happened, there should have been a verb in the past to create a correct sentence (for example.B the contract was concluded).
But the quoted wording (without a verb) would be normal at the end of the agreement itself, especially directly above the signatures of the parties: this is where the present applies because they actually conclude the agreement by adding their signatures. It is considered that the wording of Paragraph 72(2) of the BGB limits compensation to negative contractual interest. According to this provision, an unfair negotiator must “make good the damage suffered by the other party by accounting for the conclusion of the contract” and not the damage caused by the non-conclusion of the contract. . . .