The theory of an implicit social contract is also under the principles of explicit consent.  The main difference between tacit consent and explicit consent is that explicit consent should not leave room for misinterpretation. In addition, you should indicate directly what you want and the person must react in a concise manner that confirms or rejects the proposal. The general principle is that the intention to establish legal relations is presumed in trade agreements. This can be refuted by the words used in the agreement. The agreement must be very clear as to the nature and effect of this restriction and the courts are very strict about the interpretation of these agreements. A clear explicit statement, which excludes legal intent, can be considered effective in two cases: “Any collective agreement concluded after the beginning of this section must be clearly regarded as having not been considered by the parties as a legally enforceable contract, unless the contract can be reduced to the following conditions: each of us puts his person and all his power under the supreme authority of the general will; and in one body we receive each limb as an indivisible part of the whole.  Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a theory of the will of the treaty, according to which all contractual conditions are binding on the parties because they have chosen these conditions for themselves. This was not true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; At the time, more emphasis was placed on the review, i.e. a reciprocal exchange of the benefits necessary for the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit clauses that stemmed from the nature of the contractual relationship and not from the decisions made by the parties.
Accordingly, it has been argued that the theory of the social contract is more compatible with the contractual law of Hobbes and Locke`s time than with the contractual law of our time, and that certain characteristics of the social contract that seem to us to be unsanquentanomal, such as the belief that we are bound by a treaty formulated by our distant ancestors, Hobbes` contemporaries would not have seemed as foreign as we are.  The central assertion that the theory of the social contract is approaching is that law and political order are not natural, but human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means to achieve an end – the usefulness of the people concerned – and only to the extent that they are part of the agreement. Hobbes argued that the government was not a party to the original treaty and that citizens were not obliged to submit to the government if it was too weak to act effectively to suppress fractionism and civil unrest. According to other theorists of the social contract, if the government fails to safeguard its natural rights (Locke) or to satisfy the best interests of society (called “general will” by Rousseau), citizens can withdraw their duty of respect or change of direction through elections or other means, including, if necessary, violence. Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, which is why God`s reign replaced the authority of government, while Rousseau believed that democracy (autocracy) was the best way to guarantee well-being while preserving individual freedom under the rule of law. The concept of a social contract was invoked in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
The social theories of contracts were eclipsed in the 19th century in favour of utilitarianism, hegelianism and Marxism; they were revived in the 20th century, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.  However, if there is a clear contractual liability, the presumption is rebutted. In Merritt/Merritt, a separation agreement between insane spouses was enforceable. At Beswick v. Beswick, an uncle`s agreement to sell a coal delivery to his nephew was enforceable.