The refusal itself does not terminate any contract. It allows the innocent party to decide how it wants to act. Such a party should either accept the refusal or continue the performance of the contract without it actually meaning. The rejection test is objective, which means that the rejection is viewed from the point of view of the innocent party: if the reasonable person in the position of the innocent party had concluded that the other person did not intend to fulfill his or her part of the agreement, the rejection is shown. The intention of the failing party is therefore irrelevant. It also means that the conclusion must be clear – the behavior of the failing party cannot match other possible scenarios. It also means that if the rejection is cured, before the innocent party takes steps to assert its rights (which are dealt with below), the violation or rejection will disappear and the innocent party has no right to take steps to assert its rights. The party who is at the end of the disagreement (i.e. the party who does not withdraw from the contract) should be careful and ensure that it reacts properly.

If one party feels that another party has refused the contract, the innocent party may: the refusal is given if the borrower refuses to honour that contract and no longer makes the agreed payments. In the case of fixed-rate instruments, it is always possible for the borrower to become insolvent, challenge the validity of the contract or refuse payment. If the borrower refuses the contract, the investors concerned may lose their entire investment, unless they can reconcile against the borrower. However, with regard to sovereign debt, there is often no way to oppose the credit nation. A contract can be concluded in different ways. The concept of termination of a contract includes various acts that a party could perform against the intention of the parties if they signed the contract: breach of an essential clause, serious violation of a non-substantial clause, reciprocal agreement to terminate the contract, termination of the contract and, finally, refusal. If you think that the other party has rejected the contract, you have the choice, either: another justification for the doctrine of rejection is based on the violation of an implied term that does not render the future performance unnecessary: “[O] an essential promise, which is implicit in each contract, is that none of the parties without any reason to reject its obligations under the contract whether or not the time of representation is come.” [4] The rejection of the contract by one party gives the other party the right to terminate and claim damages. However, it is possible that the dementer does not reject the entire contract, but only certain obligations.

In this case, the aggrieved party acquires the right of termination only if the adverse party refuses an obligation that would give a right of termination in the event of an infringement. [5] If the first option is chosen, i.e. a specific benefit, the courts may be approached to enforce the contractual terms. For example, if the agreement applies to the sale of a particular property, the court may be asked to order the transfer of that property. It goes without saying that the person seeking the court`s assistance must be able and willing to meet his or her obligations under the agreement. It is therefore normal for the court order to contain that the transfer must be registered after payment of the purchase price.