In exceptional cases, a party may be held liable despite the impossibility of service. A party may be held liable for contractual damages if the impossibility has been taken into consideration or if the party has provided the service. If performance is partially impossible, the entire contract may be ennoxed; alternatively, there may be a proportional reduction in consideration depending on the circumstances. A party may be held liable for tortious damages if it incorrectly gives the impression that the service is possible and the other party suffers a loss. Transfers made during the presumed performance of contracts that are ineffective due to impossibility may be recovered through remedies based on unjustified enrichment. Although the above definitions are generally accepted, a scientific debate is raging about the exact nature of release and renunciation. According to Kerr, this is a unilateral legal act. The power to exonerate a debtor from his obligation is entirely in the hands of the creditor, who only has to say: ”I do not want to make use of this right” to terminate it. [Citation required] SW van der Merwe and his co-authors, on the other hand, assert in Contract: General Principles, that this is an exemption agreement, i.e. a bilateral legal act that is not a treaty. [Citation required] HR Christie argues for a distinction based on circumstances. It is a: the object of the contract is included in the terms of an agreement. These conditions define and qualify the obligations that a contract creates.
 A non-amendment clause sometimes has unacceptable consequences and its application is limited. It is interpreted restrictively because it limits the principle of freedom of contract. Termination of the contract and certain forms of abandonment of the law (e.g. waiver of an acquired right under the datio in solutum, the debtor`s exemption and a pactum de non petendo) do not establish any derogation. A non-modification clause is not applied if its application is contrary to public policy or if a rate of legal effect can be levied. Neither defence was successfully raised in a notified case. In the case of innocent misrepresentation, there can be no right to tortious damages, since the misrepresentation was made without fail; there is also no right to contractual damages in the absence of infringement, unless the insurance has been guaranteed its accuracy. However, if the innocent misrepresentation amounts to a dictum et promissum, the buyer may demand a reduction in the price within the framework of the actio quanti minoris: a limited form of legal protection, since consequential damages caused by the misrepresentation are not compensated. It is however recommended not to enter into oral agreements, as there is no way to prove the terms of the agreement during disputes….