I don`t remember that “walking” was used in Australia to mean “because.” I think* it has sometimes been used to mean “pass, move forward”, for example “The case (police/court) is on foot”. But certainly, “but” at the end of the sentence was a shibboleth for those of Irish descent. (I think of a friend named Condon.) For example, A enters into a contract with B on January 1 to sell 500 quintals of wheat and deliver on May 1. Then, on April 15, A wrote to B and said he would not deliver the wheat. B may immediately consider the infringement as having occurred and bring an action for damages for the proposed service, although A has until 1 May to provide the service. However, one of the unique characteristics of a proactive breach is that, when an aggrieved party decides not to accept a refusal of notice, not only does the contract continue on foot, but is not entitled to damages, except in the case of an actual breach.  In contrast, a foot search of the TheGuardian.com provides only 146 shots, many of which are false positives (“a journey 26 miles on foot”) or referring to Irish sources. The crucial question is whether what has been agreed is “totally incompatible” with the first treaty or whether it goes “to the root” of the first treaty to fully implement it; or if there has been an amendment that qualifies or modifies some of the provisions of the first treaty, but leaves the rest on foot. As Lord Sumner said in British & Beningtons Ltd v North West Cachar Tea Co Ltd  AC 48, which is central: I had never heard (as I recall) the phrase “walk from” until I read this article.
The offence is a legal means and a kind of civil injustice in which a negotiated agreement or exchange is not respected by one or more contracting parties by non-compliance or impairment of the performance of the other party. An offence is when a party fails to fulfil its obligation(s), whether in whole or in part, as described in the treaty, or intends to fulfil the obligation or otherwise is unable to fulfil its obligation under the treaty. In the event of an infringement, the damage resulting from the infringement must be paid to the injured party. In Morris v Baron & Co  AC 1, Morris agreed to sell 500 copies of Blue Serge to Baron & Company on the terms set out in the written contract (and thus to meet the written requirements of section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 (UK), the parties continued and their actions were ultimately affected by an oral agreement, according to which the Baron & Company should be compensated for defective deliveries already made. freely accept other deliveries at its discretion and have time to pay for unpaid bills. The question before the House of Lords was whether any of the agreements were applicable: Graw S, An Introduction to the Law of Contract (1998), 3rd Ed, Lawbook Company Information Services, North Ryde, pp. 322- 323. This is if the common intention of the parties. it was a question of “abolishing” the old contracts by an agreement “totally new” and “concluded in itself” or “self-unsustainable”, of “repealing”, of “repealing” them, of “replacing” them or of “swearing them”, which “contained in full the old conditions, as well as those taken up by the new concepts”. The Court considered the extent to which the fixed-price contract should replace the Cost Plus contract.
The client first argued that the fixed-price contract was only signed in the form of a “false contract” to allow the property owners to obtain financing from Macquarie Bank – it was a prerequisite for their construction credit permit that the contract be concluded for a fixed amount and not on a “cost-plus” basis. . . .