How did thomas hobbes’s interpretation of the social contract differ from john locke’s

Hobbes thought that consent extorted by fear and coercion was valid and that the power of the sovereign was unlimited and without bounds. He also thought that the primary aim of the contract is to ensure peace and physical safety. Property rights are secondary and effectively exist only as enforceable by law. Locke had a more normal view of consent and believed in a limited government that is consented to to protect pre-existing property rights. If the government goes too far the “people” (male property owners), may “appeal to heaven” or revolt. Hobbes would have thought that a sovereign who could be overcome in a revolution was not a real sovereign.

what play?

explanation:

in what passage i'm sorry but i don't see anything there.