The article analyzes the preliminary negotiation clause in contracts and its influence on civil disputes in court. It notes disagreement among courts. Some treat the clause as a binding obligation and a condition for hearing the claim, while others see it only as a voluntary step toward settlement.Using an analytical and descriptive approach, the article argues that in substantive law this clause reflects party autonomy and the duty to honor agreements. In procedural law it may operate as a prior formal requirement for bringing a claim, so that admissibility depends on a genuine attempt at negotiation.The article stresses that courts, under rules on reasoned judgments, must clearly address objections based on a preliminary negotiation clause and explain why they accept or reject them. It also examines good faith in the performance of this clause and the effects of refusal, silence or delaying tactics by one party. A simple demand for payment or a bare refusal to pay does not end the duty to negotiate. The parties must show serious and honest efforts to reach compromise.Finally, the article concludes that ignoring a preliminary negotiation clause undercuts contractual initiative and weakens the conciliatory role of civil justice. A more respectful approach to such clauses can both protect party rights more effectively and help ease court congestion.