When a contract for work or work is performed in a defective manner, the appropriate measure of damage is the difference between the value of the property and the defect and its value if the contract had been strictly respected. If the contractor deliberately departs from the contractual agreement, but there is no substantial benefit, the damage is determined by the actual costs of rebuilding the building in accordance with the terms of the contract. However, the essential principles of contract law in English law have remained stable and familiar, as an offer under certain conditions, which is reflected in an assumption, would generally be applicable by a counterparty and without constraint, ineligibility for influence or misrepresentation. The rules were codified and exported to the British Empire, as for example in the Indian Contract Act of 1872.  New requirements for fairness in exchange for duty of faith or general obligations of good faith and disclosure have been characterized as unjustified, as the courts have insisted that commitments “not be imposed on those behind their backs.”  Parliamentary legislation, apart from the general codifications of commercial law such as the Sale of Goods Act of 1893, has also enabled people to face the harsh realities of the market and “contractual freedom”. This only changed when the property qualifications for voting for MPs were reduced and abolished, with the UK slowly becoming more democratic.  When a contract is formed, good reflection is required and, therefore, a free promise is not binding. However, the review must be of sufficient value in the eyes of the law, but it must not reflect a reasonable price. Proverbially, you can sell a house for as little as a peppercorn, even if the seller “doesn`t like pepper and throws corn.”  This means that courts generally do not question the fairness of trade unless there is legislation or (in certain contexts such as consumers, employment or leases) two parties with unequal bargaining power.
 Another difficulty is that the consideration for a deal was not given if the given thing was an act that was done before the promise, such as the promise to make a loan for money already used to educate a girl.  In this situation, the courts have long been willing to assert that the case that was made was implicitly based on the expectation of a reward.  Major problems arise when contractors wish to change their conditions. The old rule that preceded the development of protection in the law of economic constraints was that if a party merely promises to fulfill an obligation it had already assumed against a higher price, there is no contract.  In the principal, Williams/Roffey Bros. Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd. the Court of Appeal, however, stated that it was more willing to interpret someone who essentially had to give what he had to do before he considered the new agreement if he granted “practical utility” to the other party.  When Williams, a carpenter, was promised by Roffey Bros, the owner, to more money for the term work, it was found that Roffey Bros. would avoid a penalty clause for the late execution of the contract, would eventually avoid the cost of litigation and would have a slightly more reasonable, sufficient payment mechanism.