The Federal Insolvency Act contains certain procedural safeguards to ensure that the debtor knowingly firms his debt. Under its provisions, the law states that the debtor confirmed the debt before the debtor went bankrupt; He then has sixty days to recall his confirmation. If the liquidator is an individual, the law also requires that a trial be held to explain the consequences of its reaffirmation and that the assertion of certain debts to consumers is subject to judicial approval if the debtor is not represented by a lawyer. In June 2016, the Court of Appeal, in MW/Rock Advertising, again questioned whether the practical doctrine of benefits could be applied to the reduction of fewer pacts or acceptance agreements. Both Arden LJ and Kitchin LJ supported this approach, which suggests that partial payment, combined with practical benefits, may be enough to support a promise to accept less. The decision was criticized because the practical utility test extends beyond its borders.  Any consideration may have value (like all the goods, money, services or promises of each party) that each party gives as underperformance to support its side of the bargain. Mutual promises are respect for each other.  If only one party makes a quid pro quo, the agreement is a “cash promise” and unenforceable. We have already seen how the review was originally closely linked to the civil law case – it provided a reason for awarding contracts and a reason for enforcing the agreement. With the abandonment of the motive to the notion of counterparty, the reflection has adopted a semblance more recognizable by the current law. But it would be a mistake to imagine that the common law review was a substitute for the intent that formed the basis of the civil duty of guilt.
It appears that it was accepted that the payment of a lesser amount by a third party in full satisfaction with a debt would release the debtor. The argument here is that a past service implies that it should be paid at the time of its performance. If there is later evidence of a promise of payment, this can be considered as an admission that determines the amount of the good deal on the basis of which the service was provided.