From an economic perspective, it might be argued that an unwanted performance is wasteful and that this does not maximise welfare. Generally, though, the English law of contract is not responsive to such economic arguments. Rather, when precedents are not determinative, it is intuitive judgments about what is and is not 'reasonable' that tend to guide judicial decisions – and, following the decision in White and Carter, there is a considerable body of jurisprudence betraying an intuitive sense that the innocent party should not have a completely free hand in electing between accepting the breach as a repudiation of the contract and affirmation.