Corrective action is often agreed upon in a contract, so that when a party does not comply with the contract, it dictates what happens. A simple, common and automatic remedy is to have taken a deposit and to keep it in case of non-compliance. However, courts often treat any surety that exceeds 10 per cent of the contract price as excessive. A specific justification is needed before a larger amount can be retained in the form of a surety.  The courts see a high bond, even expressed in plain language, as a partial payment of the contract which, if not executed, must be reinstated to avoid unjust enrichment. However, if the parties to the same bargaining power want to insist on circumstances in which a surety will expire and insist precisely on the letter of their agreement, the courts will not interfere. In Union Eagle Ltd v. Golden Achievement Ltd, a buyer of a Hong Kong property was required to enter into a 4.2 million HK contract, which stipulates that completion must take place before 5 p.m. on September 30, 1991 and that, in the absence of a 10% surety, the contract is cancelled. The purchaser was only 10 minutes late, but the Privy Council advised that, given the need for certain rules and in order to eliminate the fear of companies in the courts that exercise unpredictable discretion, the agreement would be strictly enforced.
Agreements may also specify that, unlike an amount set by the courts, a certain amount of “liquidated harm” is paid in the event of non-performance. Courts set an external limit on liquidated compensation clauses when they have become so high or “extravagant and indecent” to resemble a sentence.  Punitive clauses in contracts are generally not applicable. However, this jurisdiction is rarely exercised, so that in Murray/Leisureplay plc, the Court of Appeal held that the severance pay of a full annual salary to the chairman of a company`s board of directors in the event of dismissal a year ago was not a punitive clause. In the recent decision of Cavendish Square Holding BV/Talal El Makdessi and its parkingEye Ltd/Beavis support case, it was decided that the examination of the unenforceable of a clause under its punitive clause “is the provision in question a secondary obligation that inflicts the offender disproportionate prejudice in relation to a legitimate interest of the innocent party in the performance of the primary duty”.” This means that an amount, even if it is not a real estimate of the injury, is not a sanction if it protects the applicant`s legitimate interest in the performance of the contract and is not disproportionate. At ParkingEye, legitimate interests included maintaining the goodwill of the parking company and promoting a rapid evolution in parking revenue. In addition, the ability of the courts to remove the clauses as sanctions applies only to payment clauses in the event of an infringement and not to events that occurred during their execution, although the unfair terms of the regulation of consumer contracts 1999 confer liability for interfering with abusive clauses vis-à-vis consumers. Given that the 1999 Act respects the right of the promised person to apply the contract in its common law power , the question is open as to the extent to which a commitment can claim damages for a benefit on behalf of a third party if it has not suffered any personal harm.