Among the many apparently amphibious provisions under a standard agreement and an exemption agreement are both a release and a separate confederation for not to bring an appeal. Why can we ask if you need a promise from the liberating party not to sue you for the claims released, when the publication is clear and unequivocal, even when releasing these claims? Well, it turns out there`s a reason, and a recent decision of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Pro Done, Inc. v. Basham, No. 2018-0060, 2019 WL 1967686 (N.H. May 3, 2019) shows the benefits of an independent alliance, in addition to not filing a complaint. But to appreciate the present usefulness of a separate alliance, not to complain about the historical reason for its use, rather than to complete a liberation, a little substance is needed in some old principles of common law. It can be dealt with here alone or at the same time as the release clause. 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). On the basis of certain cases in other jurisdictions that had previously dealt with an agreement, not to bring legal action as the equivalent of a discharge, unless there was an express language that resulted in damages as a result of their violation, the defendants (the parties who had promised not to bring an appeal of the released rights) chose to return the applicants“ (the parties who were dismissed by the defendants) who are now being sued by the defendants, had been released) for violation of the federal state. Not to sue.