Reciprocal agreements have different legal concepts. They are sometimes called reciprocal contracts or mutual consents. The most important condition for the performance of a valid reciprocal termination contract is the existence of « reasonable performance criteria » arising from the court decision. The Supreme Court applies the validity of the reciprocal termination contract to the existence of a reasonable benefit from the worker`s point of view. The main reason for the Supreme Court`s « reasonable utility » criteria in reciprocal termination agreements is that, since the worker is granted termination of the employment contract by the employer with severance pay and severance pay, the preference for another method, which is not more advantageous, cannot be considered appropriate at the normal stage of his life. This is why, in several cases, and particularly in cases where the request for a reciprocal termination agreement is made by an employer, the Supreme Court expects, in addition to the legal rights allegedly paid in the event of dismissal by the employer and not by a reciprocal termination agreement, certain additional benefits equal to « reasonable benefits ». Several Supreme Court decisions have invalidated reciprocal termination agreements, effectively terminating the use of « employer termination » in the absence of additional payments or benefits and, as a result, related re-employment remedies have been accepted by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, when a worker is subject to a reciprocity contract, the payment of legal rights under a reciprocal termination contract – which would not have been paid in the event of ordinary termination – is considered a « reasonable benefit ». As a result, reciprocal termination agreements executed using such a method are generally considered valid. However, in certain circumstances, certain commitments that are not considered contracts may be applied to a limited extent. If one party relied on the other party`s assurances/promises to its detriment, the court may apply a just doctrine of Promissory Estoppel to compensate the non-injurious party to compensate the party for the amount it received from the appropriate appeal of the party to the agreement.
Most contracts never see a courtroom and they could be verbally easily, unless there is a particular reason for the contract to be written. If something goes wrong, a written contract protects both parties. If one part of a valid (opposable) contract believes that the other party has broken the contract (the legal clause is violated), the aggrieved party may sue the party it believes has violated.