But because the original purpose of an alliance not to file a complaint was to free the colonist from the obligation without releasing the coentrex, many courts have dealt with an alliance not to file a complaint, as if it were a current release of the debtor of settlements from the obligation (with a reserve of rights against debtors who do not delegate) and not a future promise not to file a complaint , acted. In other words, an alliance, not to complain, was considered a release as the main function … As a shield and not as a sword.  The argument that an alliance is not treated as a mere exemption (but which does not refer to the harsh doctrine of general law, which led such a release to release all the debtors, but only the reported debtor), was a concern for judicial efficiency. If an alliance was not treated as a release that could be interposed as an absolute defence against the act that was done by the colonist, then the colonist would have no defence against the complaint, but should be opposed to the colonist because of a violation of the covenant, not to bring an action. They would eventually arrive in the same place, but the plaintiff would have a judgment against the defendant for the undertaking and the defendant would have a judgment against the plaintiff in the amount of that judgment, plus costs, on the basis of the violation of the federal state. It is more effective not to commit the covenant as an fulfilment of the obligation of the settler leader to the settler`s leader and thus simply reject the obligatory colon`s appeal against the counter-colon. Even where a transaction and release agreement included both an exemption and a commitment agreement, both provisions were generally generally seen as unnecessary means of stating the default of the settlement debtor.  A non-recourse alliance requires a party who could bring a lawsuit not to do so. Confederation is expressly concluded between two parties and one in three people who wish to assert a right is legally entitled to do so.