Courts say that the parties to a contract are the best assessment of the economic fairness of a proposed contract. Companies are also the best judge to decide whether the terms of an agreement are appropriate – before they commit to it. (Consideration in contract law is simple in theory, but can become difficult in practice.) The royal courts, which were to meet by the Magna Carta in London in 1215, accepted complaints of “trespassing” (today rather as an unlawful act). A jury would be convened, and no mention of law was necessary, but it was necessary to affirm a breach of the king`s peace. Gradually, the courts admitted appeals that had not experienced any real difficulties, no unlawful acts with “armed violence” (vi and armis), but it was still necessary to put it in the plea. For example, in 1317, a Simon of Rattlesdene claimed that he was being sold a wine gene contaminated with salt water, and in a fictitious way this will be done “by force and arms, namely with swords, arrows and bows.” [4] The Court of Chancery and King`s Bench slowly began to accept claims without the fictitious charge of violence and weapons dating back to the 1350s. A lawsuit for simple breach of an alliance (a solemn undertaking) had required the establishment of formal proof of the agreement with a seal. However, in the case of The Humber Ferryman, a complaint was admitted, without documentary evidence, against a smuggler who threw overboard a horse he was to carry on the Humber River. [5] Despite this liberalization, a threshold of 40 shillings was established for the amount of the dispute in the 1200s. Although its importance has diminished over the years with inflation, it has blurred access to justice for most people.

[6] In addition, freedom of contract was strongly repressed in the peasantry. After the black death, the status of the worker of 1351 prevented any increase in workers` wages, fueling in particular the insurrection of the peasants of 1381. Given that the 1999 Act respects the right of the promise to enforce the contract as it is in force under customary law,[139] a question remains open as to the extent to which a promise on behalf of a third party can claim damages for a benefit if he or she has not suffered personal injury. In Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd,[140] Lord Denning MR ruled that a father could claim damages for the disappointment (beyond the financial cost) of a terrible holiday experience on behalf of his family. . . .