If clause with a past tense about future for hypothetical condition

Is there any case in English were a future condition is represented with past tense?

E.g. "If I saw you tomorrow, I will do ..."

In some languages, it casts more doubt for the condition to happen, i.e. says the condition is very hypothetical. In other words, it means "I know I won't see him, but if I see him, which I know I won't, then I will..."

Do we have any such thing in English?

============ Update: ==========

I am trying to find the equivalent grammar of something in my mother tongue. In a transliterated version, when we say:

"If he agrees on the price, I [will] give him a discount": It means this is a rule, i.e. agreeing on the price = receiving a discount.

But when we say:

"If he agreed on the price, I [will] give him a discount":

It strongly implies that there is a specific time frame in the future, where the if clause will become a matter of past by then = "The moment that the guys have agreed on the price and I can make an action, I will apply the rule".

In other words, this is a way to strongly emphasise on the time of decision in the future, where all the unknown conditions have been cleared. The context is around that specific moment.

Do we have any equivalent thing in English?

For example, is this correct (and mean what I explained)?

"We will meet the guys at 10pm tomorrow. They will inspect our car and probably give us an offer. Once they make/made (?) their decision, if they [had] agreed (?) on my price without haggling, I will definitely give them some discount to encourage further trade with them".

Is that correct? More importantly, does this in English also have that sort of emphasising on the time of action?

Yes, the past tense (the preterite) is used in this way in English also. When used in such a way, it is said to express modal remoteness.

Discussion

Here is an example (CGEL, p.85):

[29]  ii  If he took the later plane tonight he wouldn't have to rush.

CGEL then compares it to

[30]  ii  If he takes the later plane tonight he won't have to rush.

The difference between [29ii] and [30ii], however, is not one of time: in both cases I'm talking about future time. They belong to two different kinds of conditional construction which we call remote and open: [30ii] presents his taking the later plane tonight as an open possibility, whereas [29ii] presents it as a more remote one. Such a difference belongs to the area of meaning called modality, so that we speak of the preterite here as expressing modal remoteness.

Using will in the apodosis
normally requires a real protasis,
not an unreal protasis

SUMMARY: To use will in the "then" part, you cannot have a hypothetical in the "if" part.

Consider these possibilities, all grammatical but none what you say you want to do. Please pay special attention to the combinations in which the set-in-bold word will occurs: a present-tense will in the "then" part always means that you had reals in the "if" part, never unreals.

These are numbers 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15 below. In contrast, the unreals that take past-tense would in the "then" part are in 16, 17, and 19. Will is never hypothetical. Examples 19 and 20 are a different kind of will because it appears in the "if" part with a deontic sense of permission.

1. If he leaves me half of his lunch, then I have something to eat.
2. If he does leave me half of his lunch, then I do have something to eat.
3. If he left me half of his lunch, then he was not very hungry.
4. If he did leave me half of his lunch, then he was not very hungry.
5. If he has left me half of his lunch, then he was not very hungry.
6. If he has left me half of his lunch, then he will not have been very hungry.
7. If he left me half of his lunch, then I have something to eat.
8. If he did leave me half of his lunch, then I have something to eat.
9. If he left me half of his lunch, then I had something to eat.
10. If he did leave me half of his lunch, then I had something to eat.
11. If he left me half of his lunch, then I did have something to eat.
12. If he leaves me half of his lunch, then I will have something to eat.
13. If he does leave me half of his lunch, then I will have something to eat.
14. If he left me half of his lunch, then I will have something to eat.
15. If he did leave me half of his lunch, then I will have something to eat.
16. If he left me half of his lunch, then I would have something to eat.
17. If he were to leave me half of his lunch, then I would have something to eat.
18. If he were to have left me half of his lunch, then I would have had something to eat.
19. If he will leave me half of his lunch, then I will have something to eat.
20. If he will have left me half of his lunch, then I will have something to eat.

Notice where there are bold instances of will above. When they are in the "then" part, you know that the "if" part cannot have been unreal, cannot have been “hypothetical”; it must have been a real present or a real past in the “if” — or in the final and rather rare cases, a deontic will in the "if".

That's why this is not grammatical:

21. ❌ If only he had left me half his lunch, I ❌ will have something to eat.

So the answer is no, you cannot do what you say you want to do: you do not get to use will with an unreal past as you seem to desire. You may only use will in the apodosis if there is a real protasis, not an unreal protasis.

If you have an unreal protasis, you have to use would, the past tense of will, in the apodosis. That’s because you have to backshift present-tense will into past-tense would there to make it line up and be unreal.

Another poster has suggested that you may not have asked what you wanted to know. If so, then please do not be surprised that I will not have attempted to answer something you will not have written. :)