Whether a contract is terminated or not, any breach of an essentially executed contract creates the right to be improved. The power of a court to grant appeals is the last sanction against non-performance and, if the defendant is not insolvent, the objective is to obtain full compensation for the innocent party, as if the contract had been executed. This remedy to protect “expectations” is an essential distinction between contracts as obligations of infringement or unjust enrichment. In cases where the benefit is insufficient, the courts generally provide money to cover the costs of eliminating the default, unless the amount is disproportionate and another amount reasonably achieves the same compensation objective. In Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth although a pool valued at $17,797 was built flat 18 inches, the market value of the country was exactly the same. The House of Lords` solution was to reflect the “consumption surplus” lost or the “loss of amenities” with a premium of $2,500, instead of charging the cost of reconstruction at $21,560. Greater recognition of benefits in non-financial contracts has also been seen in cases where joy, enjoyment, relaxation or stress prevention are interpreted as “important concepts”. In Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd Lord MR felt that an advisor could not only get his money back, but also a small sum to reflect his disappointment after his dream holiday in the Swiss Alps, contrary to the promises in the Travel brochure of Swan Tours, proved to be a boring disaster, complete with below-average jodels.  And at Farley v Skinner, the House of Lords found that a homebuyer near Gatwick Airport could recover money if there was no peaceful pleasure, and the disruption of what would otherwise be his “quiet contemplative breakfast” of the house indicator, which ensured that there would be no noise.
The market value of the property remained unchanged, but the guarantee of tranquility and peace had been an important concept in their agreement. However, the courts have remained reluctant to allow recovery for disappointment of any breach, particularly in Employment, where a flood of people after an illegitimate dismissal could seek damages for stress and anger.  But if they break only part of the agreement, the rest is still valid. Unacceptable agreements may be refused when a person was under coercion or inappropriate influence or if his vulnerability was exploited if he was supposed to accept an agreement.