We have already seen how the review was originally closely linked to the civil law case – it provided a reason for awarding contracts and a reason for enforcing the agreement. With the abandonment of the motive to the notion of counterparty, the reflection has adopted a semblance more recognizable by the current law. But it would be a mistake to imagine that the common law review was a substitute for the intent that formed the basis of the civil duty of guilt. Courts have long had problems with charitable commitments. Recognizing the need for these commitments for charities, the courts have also recognized that a simple commitment to the general means of a hospital, university or similar institution is not, as a general rule, an essential measure, but merely a promise without consideration. If the directive encourages a non-profit organization to act, sola change-Estoppel is available as a remedy. In nearly a quarter of states, another doctrine is available for cases where they are mere promises: the theory of “mutual promises,” in which the commitments of many individuals are binding on each other and on each other. This theory was not accessible to the complainant to Timko, as his only commitment was. The consideration can be minimal, z.B 1.00. To what extent should we take into account the fact that, in this case, it is a public expenditure? Does this mean that an obligation to pay to a public body (government) should not be created? Should we not expect a public body to act as an ideal part of the process and set appropriate standards of behaviour – to act ethically? A confederation, not to sue, obliges a party who could bring a lawsuit not to do so.
Confederation is expressly concluded between two parties and one in three people who wish to assert a right is legally entitled to do so. Alliances that are not pursued are used to resolve specific legal issues outside the judicial system. Contracting parties can enter into such an agreement in order to avoid lengthy and costly legal action. In exchange for Confederation, compensation may be awarded to the party who may claim damages or can be assured that the other party will perform a particular act. The normal rule for awarding contracts is a reserve – pay attention to the buyer. Since the buyer not only has the best incentive, but also the best opportunity to assess the situation and the relative benefits of the exchange, the court is not attracted by the appreciation of the good deal or the good value of someone.