Remedies are often agreed in a contract, so that if a party does not abides by the contract, the treaty dictates what happens. A simple, usual and automatic solution is to have paid a deposit and to withhold it in case of non-execution. However, the courts often treat as excessive any payment greater than 10% of the contract price. A special justification is required before a larger sum than the down payment can be withheld.  The courts will consider a large security deposit, even if expressed in crystal clear language, as a partial payment of the contract which, if not paid, must be reinstated to avoid unjustified enrichment. However, if the commercial parties with the same bargaining power wish to insist on the circumstances in which a bond is cancelled and insist precisely on the letter of their settlement, the courts will not intervene. In Union Eagle Ltd v. Golden Achievement Ltd, a buyer of a Hong Kong building had a contract for HK$4.2 million which provided that completion was to take place before 5 p.m. on 30 September 1991 and that, if this was not the case, a 10% a liability would be cancelled and the contract would be cancelled. The buyer was only 10 minutes late, but the Privy Council indicated that, given the need for certain rules and in order to eliminate the fears of companies in courts that exercise unpredictable discretion, the agreement would be strictly enforced. Agreements may also provide that, unlike an amount set by the courts, a certain amount of “lump sum damages” is paid in the event of non-performance. Courts set an external limit on lump-sum compensation clauses if they have become so high or “extravagant and ruthless” that they resemble a sentence.
 Penalty clauses in contracts are generally not applicable. However, this jurisdiction is rarely exercised, so that in Murray v Leisureplay plc, the Court of Appeal held that severance pay of a full annual salary to the director of a company was not a penalty clause in the event of dismissal a year ago. Cavendish Square Holding BV`s recent decision against Talal El Makdessi, as well as its accompanying book ParkingEye Ltd, decided against Beavis that the examination of the unenforceability of a clause under its sanction clause was to “determine whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation that places the infringer at a disadvantage disproportionate to a legitimate interest of the innocent party in enforcing the primary obligation” whereas, even if it is not a true prediction of the damage, an amount is not a penalty if it protects a legitimate interest of the applicant in the performance of the contract and is not disproportionate. ParkingEye`s legitimate interests included maintaining the goodwill of the car park and promoting timely turnover of the car parks. In addition, the possibility for courts to remove terms as penalties applies only to terms for the payment of money in the event of infringement and not to events occurring in the course of its enforcement, although the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 confer jurisdiction on consumers over unfair terms. In a fourth case, the consequences of incapacity for work are more dramatic. Although the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 allowed the government or the offslaws of the state to be sued on contracts in the same way as a normal person, if the law gives a public body the power to perform certain acts, acts of representatives who go beyond that power will be ultra vires and void. The result is the same as for companies before the 1989 reform, so that entire chains of agreements could be declared non-existent. Unlike the wrongful act and unjustified enrichment, the treaty is generally regarded as the part of debt law that deals with voluntary obligations and, therefore, it recognizes that only negotiations to which individuals have given their true consent are applied by the courts. .