The use of the word “reasonable” created uncertainty, because the parties were not in agreement about what “reasonable” meant in relation to school costs and extracurricular expenses.
Any purchases that could be regarded as reasonable school costs or extracurricular expenses were to be paid by B, according to the agreement. If the purchases did not fall into these categories, T would have to pay for them.
The parties could have removed the word “reasonable” from the agreement and left T with an obligation to pay for all educational expenses. Alternatively, they could have attempted to list all the expenses that T would be obliged to pay in the agreement.
The agreement itself may have been able to operate if the parties were able to negotiate with goodwill the payment of monthly expenses as they arose.
However, given the nature of the parties to this agreement, the agreement was insufficient to provide them with certainty in their future financial relations. If B and T were aware at the time they signed the agreement that they were going to have difficulty forming a cooperative relationship in the future, they could have ensured that the agreement specifically outlined their financial obligations and responsibilities regarding their children’s education at the outset. They could have done this by listing all likely future expenses, and deciding at the time they entered the agreement which ones each party would pay for.