Unlike an inconclusive contract, a countervailable contract is a valid contract which, at the option of one of the parties, can either be confirmed or rejected. A part at most equal is related. The unrelated party may reject (refuse) the contract on the date on which the contract becomes void. Where a contract is concluded without the free consent of the party, it shall be considered a countervailable contract. The definition of the law stipulates that a countervailable contract is applicable by law to the choice of one or more parties, but not to the choice of the other parties. A countervailable contract may be considered valid if it is not terminated within a reasonable time by the injured party. Typical reasons for challenging a contract are coercion, unlawful influence, misrepresentation or fraud. A contract concluded by a minor is often questionable, but a minor can only avoid a contract during his minority status and for a reasonable period after the age of majority. After a reasonable period of time, the treaty is deemed to have been ratified and cannot be circumvented.
 Other examples are real estate contracts, lawyers` contracts, etc. Failure to comply with the terms of a transaction is the basis for an infringement remedy. The debtor is exempted from the payment obligation only if he has complied with the payment rules. All debts that are part of a composer are extinguished as soon as a composition has been completed. The right of withdrawal may be lost. Common Law generally states that there are four „obstacles“ to resignation, each with the consequence that the agreement is no longer considered questionable: the act of invalidation of the contract by the countervailable party exercising its rights to cancel the countervailable contract is generally either annulled (in the United States and Canada) or as a prevention of the treaty (in the United Kingdom, Australia and other Common Law countries). Black`s Law Dictionary (relevant to U.S. law) is defined as questionable as follows: Although the law varies from country to country, most disputes over whether a transaction is invalid or questionable revolve around the possibility of transferring ownership of property. In many jurisdictions, when a transaction is valid but questionable, ownership of an asset always falls under the transaction, and the recipient can sell it with good title. If the transaction is not valid, no ownership rights are transferred and the original seller can recover the goods.  If a creditor is secretly paid more or receives a preference, the other creditors can obtain the agreement because the law protects against unequal treatment of creditors.
The preferred creditor cannot enforce or cancel the agreement. The debtor has the right to claim payments from such a creditor if it is subject to the theory that a debtor is likely to be pressured by a creditor who is authorized to declare the debtor bankrupt by refusing to enter into a settlement. A standard form is not required for a settlement with creditors to be valid. A debtor may enter into individual agreements with each creditor if it is clear that each has a common goal. Not all creditors of a debtor are obliged to accept a settlement.