To be precise, a legally enforceable agreement to act or not to act is called a contract. A contract must contain these elements: offer and acceptance, reasonable and unconditional consideration, free consent, capacity, legitimate purpose, security, intention to create legal obligations, and the contract should not be cancelled. It is also possible to define that the contract that is not applicable by law is an agreement. In conclusion, the contract can be considered the culmination of an agreement that contains a merger of all the necessary elements of a legally enforceable agreement. A contract essentially has all the advantages of a valid agreement, but the reverse is not always true, that is, all contracts are agreements of nature, but not all agreements are considered a contract. The definition of the contract, up to and including Article 2 (h), defines in a coherent and clear way how and what is concluded by a valid contract. In addition, the contract encourages the conclusion of a legally binding pact, which is lacking in the case of an agreement, since both parties are not legally obliged to provide or provide a specific service. As in Balfour vs. Balfour (1919), not every verbal promise or pact constitutes a treaty.
Sometimes it is up to the parties to enter into a mutual agreement, but the applicability of such an agreement is sometimes nullified when such a pact is to be brought to justice. It is therefore possible to conclude with certainty that the scope of the Treaty does not cover all vague agreements and commitments, in so far as they have a separate legal personality. This case concerns the principle of the general offer and the intention to create a legal obligation. In this case, a pharmaceutical company promotes the claim of a drug that could cure the flu, and if someone`s symptoms persist, they were entitled to a compensatory price of £100. The complainant also contracted the flu after consuming the drug and requested the application of Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. they refused and were sued by Carlil. The jury found that the respondent`s grounds for refusal were unacceptable, given that an essential unilateral agreement was reached between the Company. . . .