In view of the fact that the worker is still protected by labour law and given the court`s rigorously rigorous interpretation of the release agreements, a number of issues that should be considered by the employer upon release are mentioned below: the authorization agreement is often used in the practice of labour law. It is generally authorized as dismissal and regulated in the form of a document signed unilaterally by the worker and granted to the employer. Finally, it is worth mentioning the effects of terminating a liability under unblocking contracts that do not involve an amount. While the Court of Appeals recognizes that the licensing agreements between distributors must be clear and precise and what their debts are, it has not recognized that they do not include an amount as a ground for nullity. However, it is not possible to solve the problem in the same way in labour law. Given that a worker who earns a living because of his work would not release the employer for no reason, it is not fair to estimate an unblocking that does not contain an amount, and the principle of interpretation in favour of the worker in labour law requires it. The precedents of the Court of Appeal do not consider releases that do not contain an amount. Since the unlocking agreement is a means of terminating uncontested claims, it is not possible to terminate a debt subject to compensatory measures or a debt whose existence is at issue. Therefore, when an employer argues that the worker is not entitled to a claim, he cannot be discharged. The Court of Appeal has consistent jurisprudence on the invalidity of release agreements at odds with the defence evidence. In 1226-1227, when he belonged to Hugh Despenser, he obtained various privileges for himself and his men and tenants there, including the annulment of lawsuits in the county and a hundred courts, sheriff`s aides and Frankpledge`s sight, and also a market every Thursday and a fair at the vigil, day and morning of St.
Peter ad vincula.