If one analyzes a difficult subject that “permeates” contract law and is “vital” to the national economy, scientists have produced a multitude of articles on the legal and societal aspects of contract construction conditions With their February 2019 article in the Harvard Law Review, Pseudo-Contract and Shared Meaning Analysis, professors Robin Bradley Kar and Margaret Jane Radin are in discussion. The bold position of the authors is that despite its physical presence in the document (or on a computer screen) Boilerplate lacks contractual strength without real consent. The authors argue that this widespread use of pseudo-contracts and their “false conditions” invited “emerging forms of consumer deception”. For Kar and Radin, Boilerplate`s prevalence has undermined mutual consent so much that it has jeopardized the very legitimacy of the treaty. I respectfully suggest that Kar and Radin`s article be doctrinal and normative. In particular, the construction of the authors is at odds with the essential principles of the treaty, including objective contractual standards, contractual freedom and the obligation to read and understand a treaty. The likely practical effects of this empirically inferotic proposal, which aims to remove many contractual conditions, would be the rumbling of the markets and the fact that buyers and sellers maintain their confidence in their agreements. The unintended consequence of the change of Kar and Radin would be to undermine the two objectives of the treaty, which are: a) the application of the treaty accepted by the parties and b) the guarantee of the stability, security and predictability of the treaty. For all these reasons, I recommend that the courts and legislators oppose a common analysis of meanings.
The current system offers more effective measures to ensure private order. Statutes or court orders can create unspoken contractual conditions, especially under standardized conditions such as employment or delivery contracts. The United States Unique Code of Commerce also imposes a tacit bona fide and fair trade alliance in the enforcement and enforcement of treaty-making under the Code. In addition, Australia, Israel and India imply a similar term in good faith by law. Contractual guarantees are less important conditions and are not fundamental to the agreement. They cannot terminate a contract if the guarantees are not fulfilled, but they can claim damages for the losses incurred. A contract is a legally binding document between at least two parties, which defines and regulates the rights and obligations of the parties to an agreement.  A contract is legally enforceable because it complies with the requirements and approval of the law. A contract usually involves the exchange of goods, services, money or promises from one of them. “breach of contract” means that the law must grant the victim either access to remedies, such as damages, or annulment.  Less often are unilateral treaties in which one party makes a promise, but the other party promises nothing.
In these cases, those who accept the offer are not obliged to disclose their consent to the supplier. In a reward contract, for example, a person who has lost a dog could promise a reward if the dog is found through publication or oral. The payment could be packaged in addition if the dog is made alive. Those who learn the reward are not obliged to look for the dog, but if someone finds and delivers the dog, the promisor is required to pay.