This difference has practical consequences. Therefore, an agreement contrary to a contract (z.B a saleswoman who does not deliver her goods to her first buyer, but to a third party who offers a higher price) can thus retain the ex-post profits of this so-called “effective violation”. This rule even allows a deliberate promise to simply justify the value of its performance, instead of, for example, taking advantage of one`s own (more significant) earnings from the injury. Therefore, an accountant contemplating a breach can only become aware of his or her own interest in the profits generated by that breach. It reserves the right to manage representation, so to speak, on its own behalf and not as a trustee of its promise. Similarly, the undertaking made in the event of a breach must take all reasonable steps to protect its contractual expectations, or risk resorting to full reparation, the doctrine which obliges, by sacrifice, to mitigate its damages. This doctrine reflects the fact that the contracting parties will include an appropriate reduction obligation in their ex ante agreements in order to maximize the expected contractual surplus that they can share. As a result, the contracts include tacit agreements where that interested parties may demand commitments to reduce losses related to self-interested offences. Loyalty to trusts would prohibit it.
The big differences in the two theories arise when one party asserts that it did not intend to conclude the agreement. Party A, for example, owns a $20,000 car. Its neighbour, Part B, asks The Party A how much money the money is, which party A would be willing to sell the car. Party A, which has no intention of selling the car, and knows that Party B cannot afford to pay $20,000, says, “I would sell it to you for $1,000.” Party B replies: “Ok, it`s a deal.” Part A states that his offer was not serious and that he never intended to sell the car for that amount. Nevertheless, a court found that Parties A and B had reached a binding agreement – the sale of the car for $1,000 – if a reasonable person in Part B`s position had believed that Part A intended to enter into such an agreement.