Contract law works best when an agreement is reached, and recourse to the courts is never necessary because each party knows its rights and obligations. However, where an unforeseen event makes an agreement very difficult, if not impossible, the courts will generally consider that the parties wish to break their obligations. It may also be that a party simply violates the terms of the contract. When a contract is not executed in substance, the innocent person has the right to terminate his own benefits and to sue for damages in order to allow him to put himself in a situation, as if the contract had been executed. They are required to reduce their own losses and cannot claim prejudice that was a distant consequence of the offence, but remedies under English law are based on the principle that full compensation for all losses, not or not, must be repaired. In exceptional cases, the law continues to require a criminal to replace the benefits of breaching a contract and may require a specific execution of the agreement instead of financial compensation. It is also possible that a contract will be cancelled because a party has not advertised adequately based on the nature of the contract or has provided false information during the negotiations. Whether a contract is terminated or not, any breach of an essentially executed contract creates the right to be improved. The power of a court to grant appeals is the last sanction against non-performance and, if the defendant is not insolvent, the objective is to obtain full compensation for the innocent party, as if the contract had been executed. This remedy to protect “expectations” is an essential distinction between contracts as obligations of infringement or unjust enrichment. In cases where the benefit is insufficient, the courts generally provide money to cover the costs of eliminating the default, unless the amount is disproportionate and another amount reasonably achieves the same compensation objective. In Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth although a pool valued at $17,797 was built flat 18 inches, the market value of the country was exactly the same.
The House of Lords` solution was to reflect the “consumption surplus” lost or the “loss of amenities” with a premium of $2,500, instead of charging the cost of reconstruction at $21,560. Greater recognition of benefits in non-financial contracts has also been seen in cases where joy, enjoyment, relaxation or stress prevention are interpreted as “important concepts”. In Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd Lord MR felt that an advisor could not only get his money back, but also a small sum to reflect his disappointment after his dream holiday in the Swiss Alps, contrary to the promises in the Travel brochure of Swan Tours, proved to be a boring disaster, complete with below-average jodels.  And at Farley v Skinner, the House of Lords found that a homebuyer near Gatwick Airport could recover money if there was no peaceful pleasure, and the disruption of what would otherwise be his “quiet contemplative breakfast” of the house indicator, which ensured that there would be no noise.