In a limited number of cases, an agreement is not applicable unless it is consistent with a specified legal form. While contracts can generally be concluded without formalities, it is assumed that some transactions require form, either because it causes a person to think carefully before committing to an agreement, or only as clear evidence.  This generally applies to large commitments, including the sale of land, of a lease of real estate for more than three years of a consumer credit contract and a change.  A guarantee contract must also be proven in writing at a given time.  Finally, English law assumes that a free promise is not legally binding in terms of contract law. While a gift that is delivered is irrevocably transferred to the property, and while someone can always attach himself to a promise, without rendering anything, to deliver something in the future, if he signs an act that is attested, a simple promise to do something in the future can be revoked. This result is achieved with some complexity by a specificity of English law, called the doctrine of consideration. The general right to the exercise of the contract is a rule of non-compliance, as it limits the application of an agreement to those who have considered an agreement. In an early case, Tweddle v Atkinson, it was found that a son, because he had ignored his father`s promise to pay $200 to his father, could not keep the promise.  Given the principle that the exercise of the duty should take into account the responsible person who has a legitimate interest in their performance, a 1996 report by the 1996 Legal Commission, Privity of Contracts: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties, recommended that, while allowing the courts the freedom to develop the common law, some of the blatant unfairness should be eliminated. This gave rise to the Third Party Rights Act in 1999. Under Section 1, a third party may impose an agreement if it purports to grant a benefit to the third party, either individually or to a member as a class, and if there is no express provision that the person did not intend to apply it.  In this regard, the party that asserts that the execution is not contemplated by a third party places a heavy burden.  A third party has the same remedies as a person who enters into an agreement and can impose both positive benefits and liability limitations such as an exclusion clause.  The rights of a third party can only be revoked or revoked without their consent if it is reasonably likely that they will use them.  The royal courts, merged by Magna Carta in 1215 in London, accepted claims for “transgression of the case” (now more of a misdemeanor). A jury was convened, and there was no need for trial, but there was a need to argue for a certain breach of the royal peace. Gradually, the courts admitted claims for which there had been no real difficulties, no unlawful act of “armed violence” (vi and armis), but it was still necessary to enter it in the plea. Simon de Rattlesdene thus claimed in 1317 that he had been sold a wine contaminated with salt water and that, quite fictitiously, it had to be done “by force and weapons, namely with swords, arrows and arrows.”  The Court of Chancery and King`s Bench slowly began to admit the claims without the fictitious charge of violence and weapons dating back to 1350. A complaint for the mere breaking of an alliance (a solemn promise) required the presentation of formal proof of the agreement with a seal. However, in the case of The Humber Ferryman, a lawsuit was filed without any hard evidence against a smuggler who threw overboard a horse he was to carry on the Humber River.  Despite this liberalization, a threshold of 40 shillings had been created in the 1200s for the value of litigation.