In Masters v Cameron $(1954)91$ CLR $353$ the Court considered what parties could mean if they expressed an agreement to be "subject to contract". Which of the following was not a category recognised in the case?

The parties had intended to enter into an immediately binding preliminary agreement, with the expectation that terms would be later added to it$,$ or a new contract executed to replace it$.$

The parties had reached finality in arranging all the terms of their bargain and intended to be immediately bound to perform, but at the same time proposed to have the terms restated in a form which will be fuller or more precise but not different in effect.

The parties had completely agreed upon all the terms, but nevertheless had made performance of one or more of the terms conditional upon the execution of a formal document.

They had not concluded bargain at all, unless and until they later executed a formal contract.