(1) According to the benefit-disadvantage theory, an appropriate consideration exists only if a promise is made in favour of the promisor or to the detriment of the promisor, which reasonably and fairly leads the promisor to make a promise for something else. For example, promises that are pure gifts are not considered enforceable because the personal satisfaction that the giver of the promise may receive from the act of generosity is generally not considered a sufficient disadvantage to warrant due consideration. 2) According to the theory of the counterpart of the exchange of negotiation, there is an appropriate consideration when a promisor makes a promise in exchange for something else. Here, the essential condition is that something has been given to the promisor to provoke the promise made. In other words, the market theory for exchange differs from the residence advantage theory in that the market theory for exchange seems to focus on the parties` motive for promises and the subjective mutual consent of the parties, whereas in the denacht-advantage theory, the emphasis seems to be on an objective legal disadvantage or advantage for the parties. To enter into a contract, the offer must be met with reasonable “acceptance,” typically Gauthier (1986:140-141, 152-153) suggests that the cooperative surplus could be divided according to the ratio of the parties` “individual relative benefit of cooperation.” The relative advantage of each part of the exchange is measured by its next best option. If A and B could have generated a cooperative surplus of $10 and A could have earned $3 independently of B, while B could have earned $4, then the maximum amount A out of the surplus is $6, which is consistent with B`s voluntary cooperation, and the maximum amount B can claim is $7 for a parallel reason. If the $10 surplus is divided by a ratio of 6:7, each party receives the benefits it would expect, with the exception of cooperation, plus an additional share of the surplus commensurate with its potential to benefit from the exchange. Gauthier defends the proposal as a solution to a negotiation problem faced by interested rational actors, but it is morally questionable. It is still unclear why a party should receive more simply because it had a better alternative, as the availability of an attractive alternative may be a function of raw luck. Moreover, Gauthier`s principle does not guarantee that the parties will receive a share proportional to the sacrifices or productive contribution (Van Parijs, 1996).
It is questionable whether the law (especially in a liberal state) should impose moral duties associated with the payment of promises. The economic approach of contract law focuses on the roots of the promissory note of the contract and instead situates the justification of the law in the general welfare: the rules of contract law allow for socially productive dependence on promises and mutually beneficial exchange. This approach is more important among academic lawyers than among philosophers and is widely considered, at least in the United States, as the leading interdisciplinary approach to contract law. Main Agreement means Customer`s contract with another party under which the Services are to be provided. If the contract involves a sale of goods (i.e. movable property) between merchants, the acceptance does not need to reflect the terms of the offer for a valid contract to exist, unless: An agreement between private parties that creates legally enforceable mutual obligations. The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally binding contract are: mutual consent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; reasonable consideration; Capacity; and legality. In some States, the consideration element may be met by a valid substitute. The remedies available in the event of breach of contract are general damages, consequential damages, damages of trust and certain services. For a contract to be valid, all six principles of contract law must be respected. Even if a principle that imposes promises of guilt cannot reasonably be rejected, it still does not fully explain why the law promotes expectations.
Another solution could also fall within the bounds of moral principles that no one could reasonably reject. For example, the law could compensate on the basis of fidelity and return the parties to their pre-contractual state in the event of a breach.