A reasonable person would accept that the two circumstances constitute reciprocal agreements, but another reasonable person cannot agree that there was a mutual agreement if there was no specific compensation for the conduct or the painting. This is an important component of the constraint. Meetings usually begin when management has been agreed for about an hour at the end or start of a chosen work day, subject to agreement between the Union and management. Oral agreements can be applied in the same way that written agreements can, but it is obviously easier to enforce a written agreement. The agreed terms are set black and white and are not open to « he said, she said » interpretation. But the application also requires that a reasonable person assume that an agreement is a reciprocal contract in the present circumstances, and that is the standard used by a court. It would not necessarily be important if Joe did not believe that there would be mutual agreement, if a reasonable person believed that it existed. All contracting parties must be able to agree and respect them as promised. Then comes the old rule that miners cannot enter into contracts. They are not considered mature enough to understand the effects of an agreement. Both parties must be of legal age and a healthy mind. There are two general remedies for breach or breach of a mutual contract: a court may order cash damages – the party who has not performed must repay the other party financially – or may order the vulnerable party to work as it has announced under the terms of the contract.
In the 1500s, the courts began to demand reciprocity of the alliance for agreements, which meant that promises could only be kept if they were made in return for what would ultimately be called « reflection. » Soon, the concept also became known as the « quid pro quo, » the exchange of one promise or action for another. The beginning of the 20th century brought about changes that protected both sides from a reciprocal agreement or treaty. The modalities necessary for the implementation of mutual agreements were set by national legislators and Congress, and then applied by national and federal courts. From the mid-1960s, consumer protection was strengthened, ensuring a genuine mutual agreement between consumers and large businesses. As the materialistic perspective emphasizes concrete conditions, it tends to minimize the constitutive aspects of the law: the physical realities of organizational life should not depend on the presence or absence of legal descriptions – especially since economic actors can generally, by mutual agreement, indicate everything that is not yet defined by law. Nevertheless, in some of the writings of the transaction, at least embryonic, there are references to a materialistic approach to the constitutive law. Pylons (1990), for example, suggests that the fundamental distinction between markets and hierarchies lies in the « standard » rules that govern these two types of economic activity. While a carefully crafted network of contract contracts can theoretically achieve the same results as a corporate charter, the prefabricated presentation of business creation probably relieves the cognitive burden of building such a relationship. Given that human beings are entirely rational, it follows that many organizations would never see the light of day without this legal definition of support.