根据合同法，所有各方都需要履行合同义务。但是，这并不意味着他们必须坚持所有情况下的条款。欺骗性行为或误导 即使各方订立了有效的合同，但各方在合同中作出的某些承诺并不会被违反。必须了解，如果当事人之一误导对方或作出不能保留的虚假承诺，则视为误导或欺骗行为。如果合同具有误导性或欺骗性行为，那么参与误导事实的一方需要向对方支付罚金或损害赔偿（Clark等，2017）。澳大利亚合同法第18条提到了这一点。澳大利亚竞争和消费者委员会诉TPG Internet Pty Ltd  HCA 54案件显示了合同条款中误导性的影响。本案重申了第18节的重要性。错误 如果其中一方犯了错误，他们将不会被提供根据合同法义务逃脱的权利。合同法可能出现四种错误。一个常见的错误是当双方都误解了同样的问题。在这种情况下，双方都有公平的补救办法。 McCrae v联邦处置委员会（1951）84 CLR 377是一个常见错误发生的例子（Smits，2017）。
Contract law is directed towards the enforcing of certain promises that are made by the parties. The five factors are formation of the contract or agreement of terms, consideration of the terms of the agreement, capacity of the parties to enter into the agreement, intention to ensure that they enter into legal relations and certainty of the terms (O’Sullivan and Hilliard, 2016). However, these are not the only factors.
The purpose of this analysis is to understand the scope of the contracts and how to address anomalies in the contract formation.
According to the contractual law, all the parties need to meet their contractual obligations. However, this does not mean that they must adhere to the terms in all the cases.
Deceptive Conduct or Misleading
Even though the parties enter into a valid contract, there are certain promises that each party makes in the contract and these must not be violated. It is imperative to understand that if one of the parties misleads the other or make false promises that cannot be kept, it is considered to be misleading or deceptive conduct. In case where the contract is misleading or deceptive conduct, then the party who was involved in the misleading of the facts needs to pay fines or damages to the other party (Clark et al., 2017). This is mentioned in Section 18 of the Australian Contract law. The case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd  HCA 54, shows the impact of misleading in contractual terms. The importance of Section 18 has been reiterated in this case.
If one of the parties makes a mistake, they will not be provided a right to escape under the contractual law obligations. There are four kinds of mistakes that could arise in the contract laws.
A common mistake is when both the involved parties are mistaken about the same issues. There are equitable remedies given to both the parties on such condition. The case of McCrae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377 is an example of the common mistake that occurs (Smits, 2017).