In general, writers have made Marxist and feminist interpretations of the treaty. attempts to understand the purpose and nature of the treaty as a phenomenon of global understanding, in particular, the relational theory of contracts, originally developed by American experts Ian Roderick Macneil and Stewart Macaulay, which was based at least in part on the contract theory of the American scientist Lon L. Fuller, while American scientists were at the forefront of the development of the economic theories of contracts focused on transaction costs and the so-called “effective violation”. The parties must have the intention that the offer and acceptance be legally binding on them: the “contractual will”. While the model of an offer that reflects acceptance is useful for analyzing almost all agreements, it is not appropriate in some cases. In The Satanita, the rules of a yacht race provided that sailors should be held responsible for all damage to other vessels beyond the limits set by law. The Court of Appeal found that the competition rules between the owner of Satanita and the owner of Valkyrie II, which he sank, generated a compensation contract, although there was at no time a clear offer that was reflected in a clear acceptance between the parties. Along with a number of other critics, Lord Denning MR proposed, in a number of cases, that English law renounce its rigid commitment to supply and acceptance in favour of a broader rule, where the parties must agree substantially on the essential points of the treaty. In Butler Machine Co Ltd/Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd, this would have meant that during a “form struggle” two parties would have been interpreted in such a way as to have a essential agreement on the buyer`s standard terms and to exclude a price modification clause, while the other members of the court shared the same opinion as to the ordinary analysis.
In Gibson v. Manchester CC, he would have reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords by allowing Mr. Gibson to buy his house from the Council, while the Council`s letter stated that it “should not be regarded as a firm offer”. This approach would perhaps leave more discretion to a court to do what, at the time, seems appropriate, without being bound by what the parties might subjectively have intended to do, particularly where those intentions are manifestly contrary. In the United Kingdom, the offence is defined as follows in the Terms of the Unfair Contract Act 1977: [i] non-performance, [ii] poor performance, [iii] partial performance or [iv] performance substantially different from what was reasonably expected. Innocent parties may refuse the contract only because of a serious offence (violation of the condition), , but they may at any time recover replacement damages, provided the violation has caused foreseeable damage. The courts, like everyone else, know that this insurance is available to reduce the risks posed by a particular contract. There are two types of misrepresentations: fraud in fact and fraud in incitement. The fraud in the Factum focuses on whether the party accusing the misrepresentation knew that it had established a contract.