However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, quid pro quo was defined as „one thing in return for another“; tit for the action. The Latin phrase, which corresponds to the use of quid pro quo in English, is do ut des (Latin for „I give so you can give“).  Other languages continue to use do ut des for this purpose, while quid pro quo (or its pro quo equivalents, as is widely used in Italian, French and Spanish) still retains their original meaning of something that is unintentionally confused or mis-told or misunderstood, instead of something else. And while a quid pro quo is generally not illegal per se, the type of exchange (is it questionable or not?) and its legality depends heavily on the context and circumstances. In 1654, the term quid pro quo was used to refer generally to something that was done for personal gain or with the expectation of reciprocity in the text The Reign of King Charles: An History Disposed into Annalls, with a somewhat positive connotation. He describes the covenant with Christ as something „that is neither a nudum pactum nor a naked treatise, without balance.“ The faithful to Christ must do their part, namely „to leave the devil and all his works.“  Quid pro quo is a Latin term meaning „something for something.“ It is often mentioned in contracts because it represents the contractual notion of consideration, that is, the value received for a promise to do or not to do something. The clause of the quid pro quo contract is „mutual consideration.“ In the United States, where the exchange appears to be excessively one-sided, the courts may challenge, in some legal systems, whether there was indeed a consideration and whether the contract can be cancelled. In the case of Quid Pro Quo business contracts, this term takes on a negative connotation, as large companies can go beyond ethical limits to enter into these very valuable and mutually beneficial agreements with other large companies. These agreements are often large sums of money and can, for example, lead to promises of exclusive partnerships for an indefinite period or promises of falsification of economic reports.  Although these terms are popular with lawyers and scholars, neither „hostile work environment“ nor „quid pro quo“ is included in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, skin colour, national origin and religion. The Supreme Court found burlington Industries, Inc.