An alliance, not to be appealed, was initially conceived as a means of avoiding the harshness of a general legal doctrine that an exemption does not only release the obligation of the housing debtor itself. Therefore, if you have settled a right with one of several joint debtors and granted discharge to that debtor, you have effectively released the full obligation and your right to sue the other complicit debtors for the remainder of the obligation not paid by the debtor of the facility. But if, instead of granting permission to the colonist, you have entered into a contract with that debtor in which you have agreed not to sue the debtor of the facility on the undertaking, avoid the rule that treats a discharge as the execution of the total undertaking. Over time, the harshness of this common rule vis-à-vis the liberating party has developed in most (but not all) states, but the payment of common debtors should always be prudent when it comes to filing a complaint with a liberating party who intends to pursue rights against debtors who do not default. , because these other debtors may have contribution and compensation rights against the settlement debtor.  However, after the term concluded Confederation, not because of the specific purpose of confrontation with a hard common law rule with common commitments, the concept began to find its way into liberation and transaction agreements in general, not as a substitute for a release (initial purpose), but in addition to a release and in circumstances that do not involve common commitments. For example, in Pro Done, the New Hampshire Supreme Court faced „a first question for this jurisdiction: does the New Hampshire law recognize a contract breach ground based on a contract that is not pursued if the treaty does not explicitly provide that the uninjured party is entitled to consequent damage because of breach of contract?“  The disputed transaction agreement contained both an authorization and an agreement not to sue a business and certain related persons with respect to certain identified claims. Nevertheless, the parties who continued the release and the non-recourse agreement subsequently sued some of the beneficiaries of the release and failed to take legal action on claims under the settlement agreement. It is not to allow the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal, based on declassification, which has been improperly brought, that the released persons have filed a separate application for violation of the federal state, which will not bring an action for damages resulting from the filing of the appeal at first instance (first, the legal costs for the defence of the unduly brought remedy).