This sentence refers to the individual efforts of each crew member. The Gregg Reference Manual provides excellent explanations of subject-verb correspondence (section 10:1001). Unlike coercion and actual unlawful influence, which exerts illegitimate pressure or presumed unlawful influence that depends on a relationship of trust that depends on a breach of trust, other cases allow a vulnerable person to avoid an agreement solely on the basis of his or her vulnerability and exploitation. In The Medina, the Court of Appeal stated that a group of pilgrims who had been shipwrecked on a rock in the Red Sea did not have to pay £4,000 they had promised to a rescue ship because the “rescuers” had taken advantage of the pilgrims` vulnerable position. In order to avoid undue enrichment, the court replaced an arbitral award of £1800. Similarly, in Cresswell v Potter, Ms Cresswell gave her ex-husband her share of her joint property in exchange for the mortgage repayment waiver, which enabled her to subsequently obtain a profit of £1400. Since Mr Potter had taken advantage of Ms Creswell`s lack of knowledge of real estate transactions, Megarry J considered that the agreement was countervailable.  A possible exception to this scheme, which is now very limited, is the “non est factum” defense, which was originally in favor of the illiterate in the nineteenth century and allowed a person to have a signed contract cancelled if it is radically different from what was intended.  In Lloyds Bank Ltd v. Bundy, Lord Denning MR suggested that it was time to integrate all cases into a single doctrine of “unequal bargaining power.”  This would have avoided an agreement if, in the absence of independent advice, a person`s ability to negotiate better terms had been seriously compromised and would have given the courts greater flexibility to modify contracts for the benefit of the weaker parties. The idea of a general uniform doctrine was rejected by some members of the House of Lords from 1979 on.  However, specific legislative provisions such as the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Human Rights Monitoring Act of 1985 or the Employment Rights Act of 1996 create specific rights for parties who lack bargaining power, as well as specific legal provisions that rewrite an obligation of disclosure and good faith.
Just as there is no uniform theory of bargaining power, a uniform doctrine of freedom of contract was dismantled long ago, where the parties do not do business in the course of their activities.  Customary law of the legal effect of the contract is a sub-rule of consideration, since it limits the application of an agreement to those who have submitted consideration for the agreement. In an early case, Tweddle vs. Atkinson, it was found that a son, because he had ignored his father-in-law`s promise to his father to pay the son £200, could not keep the promise.  In light of the principle that compliance with an obligation must reflect the person who has a legitimate interest in honouring it, a 1996 report of the Legal Commission entitled “Privity of Contract: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties” recommended that, although the courts have the freedom to develop the common law, however, some of the most egregious injustices should be eliminated.  This led to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Under section 1, a third party may enforce an agreement if it purports to grant a benefit to the third party, either individually or as a member as a class, and there is no explicit provision that the person did not intend to enforce it.  In this regard, the party who asserts that enforcement was not provided for by a third party is cumbersome.
 A third party has the same remedies as a person who has been initiated into an agreement and may impose both positive benefits and limitations of liability, such as. B an exclusion clause.  The rights of a third party may be terminated or withdrawn without his or her consent only if it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party would avail himself or herself of them.  The formal approach of the English courts is that an agreement is reached when an offer is reflected in a clear acceptance of the terms offered. . . .