The legal literature is currently discussing the desire for concrete results. Economists generally believe that some benefits should be reserved for exceptional attitudes, given that administration is expensive and promistors may discourage participation in an effective offence. Professor Steven Shavell, for example, argued that some benefits should only be reserved for intermediation contracts and that, in all other cases, the damage to money would be greater. [9] On the other hand, many jurists from other philosophical traditions believe that a certain benefit should be preferred, as it is the closest to what was promised in the treaty. [10] There are also uncertainties arising from empirical studies as to whether, given the difficulties of implementation, a given benefit represents a value greater than promises than damage to money. [11] A special benefit is ordered at the discretion of the court where the damages do not provide a full remedy or if a particular benefit is „more complete and complete“. Where a condition exists or is met after the undertaking in question, a defined benefit can only be granted if that condition is met. There is a substantial benefit of an appeal for a given benefit where an offence is anticipated but has not yet occurred, and the innocent party wants the existing contract to be executed instead of seeking damages and entering into a replacement contract. If an offence is expected, the innocent person can apply for a concrete benefit order before the contract has been breached. In comparison, a claim for compensation can normally only be made after an offence. The exception here is when an anticipatory offence is accepted by the innocent party, while it leads to the end of the contract (which allows the innocent party to claim damages, but prevents it from later claiming execution by the culprit). As noted above, the Tribunal has broad discretion in granting an order for a defined benefit. In exercising this discretion, it takes into account factors such as: in the case of a common interpretation of Section 10 and Section 14, paragraph 1, point (c), the law can be concluded that, where a contract is by nature identifiable, the courts have more reason not to order the actual performance of the contract, unless it falls within one of the exceptions in section 3 of paragraph 3 of the Act and Conditions set out in Section 3.

Under the common law, an applicant`s rights were limited to an action for damages. Subsequently, the court instead developed the remedy for certain services if the damage proved insufficient. The special benefit is often provided by the recourse of a property right which gives the applicant the right to take possession of the property at issue. [Citation required] The Indian Contracts Act is included in the Indian Contract Act of 1872. It determines the circumstances under which the commitments made by the parties would be legally binding. Under the Indian Contract Act of 1872, a contract is defined as a legally enforceable agreement. The adoption of the position provided for in various court precedents leads to the conclusion that if the contracting parties themselves provided in the contract for termination, revocation, decision of the contract in one way or another, the most likely recourse of the courts is unanimous and is rarely addressed to a specific benefit. It is therefore essential that the termination provisions are properly taken into account in each contract and that the provisions relating to the dissemination are taken into account, and all possible results and results should be taken into account when terminating the contract. There is no statute of limitations for a certain entitlement to benefits, but practice suggests that the innocent party should issue notification as soon as possible.