On 1 July 1997, AOL published revised terms which were to enter into force on 31 July 1997, without formally informing its users of the changes made, in particular to a new directive which would give access to their members` telephone numbers to third parties, including a marketing company. A few days before the changes went into effect, an AOL member informed the media of the changes and the following coverage caused a significant influx of internet traffic to the AOL page, which allowed users to reject their names and numbers on marketing lists.  Treaties often use different formulations than a negative violation to describe a type of violation. These conditions include a material breach, a fundamental breach, a material breach, a serious breach. These alternative formulations have no fixed legal meaning – they are interpreted within the framework of the treaty in which they are used. For this reason, the meaning of different concepts may vary from case to case. Possible interpretations of their meaning include “repugnant violation” and “a serious injury, but not as serious as a negative injury.” If two parties have regularly carried out transactions under certain conditions, the terms of each contract concluded may be considered to be the same, unless expressly agreed otherwise. The parties must have seized on many occasions and knew that the term was supposed to be implied. In Hollier v Rambler Motors Ltd, four annual day occasions were deemed sufficient.  In addition, at least since the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, the courts have refused to grant specific performance of contracts for personal services. This is part of a more general principle that two (potentially hostile) parties should not be required to work in a long-term relationship. In Cooperative Insurance Ltd v Argyll Ltd, although a company broke its contract with a shopping centre to cease operations, actual performance was important to retain flagship businesses and thus attract more customers to the centre in general, but a specific benefit was not granted, as it was draconian and probably unable to: to be supervised by the court.
It is not possible to make an arbitral award sanctioning an accused or making an exemulator, even for a cynical and calculated offence.  However, in limited cases, a plaintiff may succeed with a right to reimbursement of the infringer`s profits, as is generally the case in cases involving agents or other agents who profit from transactions in which they have a conflict of interest. . . .