In a limited number of cases, an agreement is not applicable unless it is consistent with a specified legal form. While contracts can generally be concluded without formalities, it is assumed that some transactions require form, either because it causes a person to think carefully before committing to an agreement, or only as clear evidence.  This generally applies to large commitments, including the sale of land, of a lease of real estate for more than three years of a consumer credit contract and a change.  A guarantee contract must also be proven in writing at a given time.  Finally, English law assumes that a free promise is not legally binding in terms of contract law. While a gift that is delivered is irrevocably transferred to the property, and while someone can always attach himself to a promise, without rendering anything, to deliver something in the future, if he signs an act that is attested, a simple promise to do something in the future can be revoked. This result is achieved with some complexity by a specificity of English law, called the doctrine of consideration. The courts say that the parts of a contract are the best judges of the commercial fairness of a proposed contract. Companies are also the best judge in deciding whether the terms of an agreement are appropriate – before hiring it. In a number of cases, the courts avoid enforcing contracts that, although formally offered and adopted, have not reached an objective agreement. At Hartog v Colin and Shields, where the seller of some Argentine rabbit skins returned his prices well below what had been proposed previously, the buyer failed to enforce the agreement, as any reasonable person would have known that the offer was not serious, but a mistake.
 If two parties feel that they are reaching an agreement, but their offer and acceptance concern two totally different things, the court will not apply any contract. In Raffles v Wichelhaus, Raffles thought he was selling cotton on a ship called The Peerless, which would arrive from Bombay to Liverpool in December, but Wichelhaus thought he would buy cotton on another ship called The Peerless, which would arrive in September. The court found that there was never a consensus ad ditto (in Latin: “agreement with the same cause”). If the agreements fail completely, but one party has worked at the request of another party based on the idea that there will be a contract, that party can claim the value of the work done or the quantum process.  Such a right of restitution allows the recovery of the costs incurred by the applicant, but does not meet its expectations for potential benefits, since there is no agreement that can be applied. The law does not recognize any contract – or agreement – to enter into a contract in the future. It has no binding effect, because supply and acceptance do not exist. In other words, what are the terms of the offer? Assuming that no maintenance and no documents or a number of events result in the terms of an explicit agreement. (1) considering, (2) with the intention of creating a legally binding contract and (3) contractual capacity) The conclusions – or implications – are drawn from their conduct to determine offer and acceptance, and the intention to create legal relations: i.e. a contract. Once the conditions are included in an agreement, their importance will have to be determined. Since the introduction of legislation regulating abusive clauses, English courts have become firmer in their general guiding principle that agreements are interpreted to reflect the intentions of the parties from the point of view of a reasonable person.
This situation has changed considerably from the beginning of the 20th century, when the English courts were involved in a theory of literary interpretation, partly defended by Lord Halsbury.  Towards the middle of the 20th century, concern about unfair clauses and in particular the exclusion of