The royal courts, merged by Magna Carta 1215 in London, have accepted claims for «offence of the case» (now more of a misdemeanour). A jury was convened, and there was no need for trial, but there was a need to argue for a certain breach of the royal peace. Gradually, the courts admitted claims for which there had been no real difficulties, no unlawful act of «armed violence» (vi and armis), but it was still necessary to enter it in the plea. Simon de Rattlesdene thus claimed in 1317 that he had been sold a wine contaminated with salt water and that, quite fictitiously, it had to be done «by force and weapons, namely with swords, arrows and arrows.»  The Court of Chancery and King`s Bench slowly began to admit the claims without the fictitious charge of violence and weapons dating back to 1350. A complaint for the mere breaking of an alliance (a solemn promise) required the presentation of formal proof of the agreement with a seal. However, in the case of The Humber Ferryman, a lawsuit was filed without any hard evidence against a smuggler who threw overboard a horse he was to carry on the Humber River.  Despite this liberalization, a threshold of 40 shillings had been created in the 1200s for the value of litigation. Although its importance has been rejuvenated over the years with inflation, it has closed most people`s access to the courts.  In addition, contractual freedom has been firmly repressed in the peasantry.
After the black death, the status of the workers prevented in 1351 an increase in the wages of the workers, which notably fuelled the peasant revolt of 1381. Contract law does not set a clear limit on what is considered an acceptable false claim or unacceptable. The question, then, is what types of false allegations (or deceptions) will be significant enough to invalidate a contract on the basis of this deception. Advertising that uses «puffing» or the practice of exaggerating certain things is a matter of possible false assertions.  The use of the word «option,» that is, a duty contrary to the obligation to provide, did not help the applicant, who was still too uncertain to apply. The Court of Appeal also found that the word «reasonable» had been used to dictate how the parties should reach an agreement and not to compel them to a reasonable period of time. In addition, the factors identified by the applicant to assist the Tribunal in assessing the period were all economic factors that the parties, not the Tribunal, had to consider in their hearings. Therefore, even if the deadline had required the parties to agree on an appropriate extension, this would not have been applicable in the absence of an objective reference criterion in the GSO (or in the completion of the initial period) until the extension period would be set. In accordance with the provisions of Section 23, an agreement involving the violation of a person or the assets of a third party is null and void and cannot be invoked by court, so that no right to violate such an illegal agreement can be considered bearable.
During the 20th century, laws and changes in judicial attitudes led to a comprehensive reform of 19th century contract law.  First, certain types of non-commercial contracts were particularly protected when «contractual freedom» appeared much more on the side of large corporations.  Consumer contracts were considered «responsibility contracts» in which there was no real negotiation and most people were «taken or abandoned».  The courts first demanded clear information before incriminating clauses were applied The Misrepresentation Act of 1967 transferred the burden of proof to the business to show that the false statements were not negligent, and the Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977 created the power to dismantle contractual clauses that were «unreasonable» when considering the bargaining power of the parties.