855:
language of the law as to contract, and the language used has reacted upon the thought. We talk about a contract as a meeting of the minds of the parties, and thence it is inferred in various cases that there is no contract because their minds have not met; that is, because they have intended different things or because one party has not known of the assent of the other. Yet nothing is more certain than that parties may be bound by a contract to things which neither of them intended, and when one does not know of the other's assent. Suppose a contract is executed in due form and in writing to deliver a lecture, mentioning no time. One of the parties thinks that the promise will be construed to mean at once, within a week. The other thinks that it means when he is ready. The court says that it means within a reasonable time. The parties are bound by the contract as it is interpreted by the court, yet neither of them meant what the court declares that they have said. In my opinion no one will understand the true theory of contract or be able even to discuss some fundamental questions intelligently until he has understood that all contracts are formal, that the making of a contract depends not on the agreement of two minds in one intention, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs — not on the parties' having meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing.
50:
899:
at one and the same moment... But on the other hand it is a principle of law, as well established as the legal notion to which I have referred, that the minds of the two parties must be brought together by mutual communication. An acceptance, which only remains in the breast of the acceptor without being actually and by legal implication communicated to the offerer, is no binding acceptance.
917:
One cannot doubt that, as an ordinary rule of law, an acceptance of an offer made ought to be notified to the person who makes the offer, in order that the two minds may come together. Unless this is done the two minds may be apart, and there is not that consensus which is necessary according to the
898:
upon the subject of the formation of contracts. Unless therefore a contract constituted by correspondence is absolutely concluded at the moment that the continuing offer is accepted by the person to whom the offer is addressed, it is difficult to see how the two minds are ever to be brought together
854:
In the law of contract the use of moral phraseology led to equal confusion, as I have shown in part already, but only in part. Morals deal with the actual internal state of the individual's mind, what he actually intends. From the time of the Romans down to now, this mode of dealing has affected the
893:
Now, whatever in abstract discussion may be said as to the legal notion of its being necessary, in order to the effecting of a valid and binding contract, that the minds of the parties should be brought together at one and the same moment, that notion is practically the foundation of
783:
used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular, it refers to the situation where there is a common understanding in the formation of the contract. Formation of a contract is initiated with a proposal or offer. This
957:
an agreement ... founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit
1122:
e.g. Lord Steyn, 'Contract Law: Fulfilling the
Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men' (1997) 113 LQR 433; c.f. § 133 BGB in Germany, where "the actual will of the contracting party, not the literal sense of words, is to be
934:
Agreement between the parties must such that they have an intention to enter into contract having consensus ad idem i.e. meeting of mind should be there and it should be in the same sense while entering into
834:
989:
However, the awareness of a legal obligation is established, not through each party's subjective understanding of the terms, but on "objective indicators," based on what each party said and did.
311:
877:
859:
The
English contracts scholar Richard Austen-Baker has suggested that the perpetuation of the concept into current times is based on a confusion of it with the concept of a
316:
829:
584:
689:
3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions
530:
579:
704:
271:
1259:
1020:. Many other contracts, but not all types of contracts, also must be in writing and be signed by the responsible party, in an element called
800:
Richard Austen-Baker has suggested that the perpetuation of the idea of "meeting of minds" may come from a misunderstanding of the Latin term
844:
is one person known for expounding the idea of a contract based on a meeting of minds, at which time it gained much support in the courts.
941:
32:
518:
1302:
1230:
749:
905:
722:
982:
one rather than a legal one should not be enforceable. It is only when all parties involved are aware of the formation of a
841:
335:
299:
328:
594:
184:
20:
79:
825:
742:
614:
340:
1164:
R. Austen-Baker, 'Gilmore and the
Strange Case of the Failure of Contract to Die After All' (2002) 18
1109:
R. Austen-Baker, 'Gilmore and the
Strange Case of the Failure of Contract to Die After All' (2002) 18
1001:
693:
847:
589:
548:
460:
1134:
1263:
1083:
950:
809:
396:
109:
997:
718:
569:
378:
228:
864:
294:
254:
179:
155:
137:
1297:
1197:
735:
711:
574:
142:
1089:
1078:
602:
439:
289:
168:
69:
527:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith)
8:
358:
249:
114:
94:
721:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to
644:
607:
449:
421:
387:
280:
265:
259:
233:
1179:
1053:
501:
490:
211:
160:
151:
132:
89:
1238:
1148:
979:
946:
918:
English law - I say nothing about the laws of other countries - to make a contract.
524:
411:
406:
368:
363:
206:
189:
28:
1037:
978:
are to be used. Equally, any such agreement where the obligation is primarily a
416:
146:
123:
1049:
1013:
805:
785:
662:
553:
484:
469:
217:
64:
816:, and a contract will be formed when the parties have met such a requirement.
813:
1291:
1061:
1005:
974:
between friends over simple personal matters should not be a situation where
453:
201:
174:
104:
196:
975:
657:
652:
639:
430:
84:
867:, and that this confusion may be the result of recent ignorance of Latin.
895:
886:
882:
495:
401:
306:
223:
1057:
697:
680:
99:
19:
This article is about the legal concept. For the Four Tops album, see
1220:
261 U.S. 592, 597, 58 Ct.Cl. 709, 43 S.Ct. 425, 67 L.Ed. 816 (1923).
1045:
963:
648:
323:
49:
24:
1073:
1017:
967:
927:
910:
789:
780:
478:
373:
41:
971:
444:
863:("agreement to the same ") which is an undoubted requirement of
804:, which actually means "agreement to the thing". There must be
1041:
1033:
878:
Household Fire and
Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant
788:
or element is considered a requirement to the formation of a
850:
wrote in 1897 that a meeting of minds was really a fiction.
634:
624:
714:
both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces
717:
7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the
American
1138:, 8 vols. (Berlin: Veit, 1840–9) online, in German
812:perspective, engaged in conduct manifesting their
531:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law
1289:
1260:"Ward v. Williams, Court of Appeals of Arkansas"
970:that they were not even aware existed. A mutual
686:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions
1032:Mutual assent is vitiated by actions such as
743:
942:Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States
1195:
1191:
1189:
819:
723:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation
750:
736:
33:Robert Sheckley short stories bibliography
996:, every contract must have six elements:
885:said, in the course of a judgment on the
31:. For the short novel by R.Sheckley, see
1198:"Balfour vs Balfour Case Summary (1919)"
1186:
966:is that a party should not be held to a
828:is usually credited with developing the
1290:
519:Duty of honest contractual performance
906:Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
707:of International Commercial Contracts
1135:System des heutigen Römischen Rechts
835:System des heutigen Römischen Rechts
1027:
808:that the parties had each, from an
696:and other civil codes based on the
13:
870:
14:
1314:
986:is there a meeting of the minds.
521:(or doctrine of abuse of rights)
336:Enforcement of foreign judgments
300:Hague Choice of Court Convention
48:
1252:
1183:as supporting this proposition.
1303:Legal doctrines and principles
1223:
1214:
1171:
1158:
1141:
1126:
1116:
1103:
329:Singapore Mediation Convention
1:
1274:
1056:. This may render a contract
703:5 Explicitly rejected by the
470:Quasi-contractual obligations
1132:Friedrich Carl von Savigny,
994:formalist theory of contract
21:Meeting of the Minds (album)
7:
1177:Thesiger LJ then refers to
1147:Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.,
1067:
10:
1319:
1282:The Principles of Contract
1196:Bhoomika CB (2021-05-13).
826:Friedrich Carl von Savigny
795:
341:Hague Judgments Convention
18:
865:synallagmatic contracting
692:4 Specific to the German
1096:
1084:Agreement in English law
951:implied in fact contract
820:Concept in academic work
397:Anticipatory repudiation
147:unequal bargaining power
1166:Journal of Contract Law
1111:Journal of Contract Law
830:will theory of contract
792:in some jurisdictions.
719:Uniform Commercial Code
694:BĂĽrgerliches Gesetzbuch
379:Third-party beneficiary
351:Rights of third parties
229:Accord and satisfaction
960:
937:
920:
901:
857:
450:Liquidated, stipulated
295:Forum selection clause
180:Frustration of purpose
1149:'The Path of the Law'
955:
932:
915:
891:
852:
848:Oliver Wendell Holmes
842:Sir Frederick Pollock
765:(also referred to as
712:Canadian contract law
80:Abstraction principle
1231:"Texas contract law"
1090:Raffles v Wichelhaus
1079:Offer and acceptance
1010:meeting of the minds
763:Meeting of the minds
541:Related areas of law
440:Specific performance
290:Choice of law clause
255:Contract of adhesion
169:Culpa in contrahendo
75:Meeting of the minds
70:Offer and acceptance
881:(1879) 4 Ex D 216,
705:UNIDROIT Principles
479:Promissory estoppel
359:Privity of contract
312:New York Convention
272:UNIDROIT Principles
115:Collateral contract
110:Implication-in-fact
95:Invitation to treat
1241:on 2 February 2009
1153:Harvard Law Review
525:Duty of good faith
422:Fundamental breach
388:Breach of contract
317:UNCITRAL Model Law
281:Dispute resolution
266:Contra proferentem
260:Integration clause
234:Exculpatory clause
1180:Adams v. Lindsell
1054:misrepresentation
924:Balfour v Balfour
861:consensus ad idem
802:consensus ad idem
779:) is a phrase in
776:consensus ad idem
760:
759:
603:England and Wales
511:Duties of parties
502:Negotiorum gestio
491:Unjust enrichment
212:Statute of frauds
161:Unconscionability
133:Misrepresentation
90:Mirror image rule
1310:
1280:Sir F. Pollock,
1268:
1267:
1262:. Archived from
1256:
1250:
1249:
1247:
1246:
1237:. Archived from
1227:
1221:
1218:
1212:
1211:
1209:
1208:
1193:
1184:
1175:
1169:
1162:
1156:
1145:
1139:
1130:
1124:
1120:
1114:
1107:
1028:Vices of consent
984:legal obligation
947:US Supreme Court
767:mutual agreement
752:
745:
738:
580:China (mainland)
549:Conflict of laws
412:Efficient breach
407:Exclusion clause
207:Illusory promise
190:Impracticability
52:
38:
37:
29:Meeting of Minds
1318:
1317:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1288:
1287:
1277:
1272:
1271:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1244:
1242:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1215:
1206:
1204:
1194:
1187:
1176:
1172:
1163:
1159:
1146:
1142:
1131:
1127:
1121:
1117:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1070:
1038:undue influence
1030:
873:
871:Use in case law
822:
798:
756:
727:
599:United Kingdom
562:By jurisdiction
36:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1316:
1306:
1305:
1300:
1286:
1285:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1269:
1266:on 2011-07-21.
1251:
1222:
1213:
1185:
1170:
1157:
1140:
1125:
1115:
1101:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1086:
1081:
1076:
1069:
1066:
1050:mutual mistake
1029:
1026:
976:legal remedies
958:understanding.
872:
869:
824:German jurist
821:
818:
797:
794:
758:
757:
755:
754:
747:
740:
732:
729:
728:
726:
725:
715:
710:6 Specific to
708:
701:
690:
687:
684:
679:1 Specific to
676:
673:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
660:
655:
642:
637:
629:
628:
620:
619:
618:
617:
612:
611:
610:
605:
597:
592:
587:
582:
577:
572:
564:
563:
559:
558:
557:
556:
554:Commercial law
551:
543:
542:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
522:
513:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
498:
493:
488:
485:Quantum meruit
481:
473:
472:
466:
465:
464:
463:
458:
457:
456:
442:
434:
433:
427:
426:
425:
424:
419:
414:
409:
404:
399:
391:
390:
384:
383:
382:
381:
376:
371:
366:
361:
353:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
333:
332:
331:
321:
320:
319:
314:
304:
303:
302:
292:
284:
283:
277:
276:
275:
274:
269:
262:
257:
252:
250:Parol evidence
244:
243:
242:Interpretation
239:
238:
237:
236:
231:
226:
221:
218:Non est factum
214:
209:
204:
199:
194:
193:
192:
187:
182:
172:
165:
164:
163:
149:
140:
135:
127:
126:
120:
119:
118:
117:
112:
107:
102:
97:
92:
87:
82:
77:
72:
67:
59:
58:
54:
53:
45:
44:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1315:
1304:
1301:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1293:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1265:
1261:
1255:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1226:
1217:
1203:
1199:
1192:
1190:
1182:
1181:
1174:
1167:
1161:
1154:
1150:
1144:
1137:
1136:
1129:
1119:
1112:
1106:
1102:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1085:
1082:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1071:
1065:
1063:
1062:unenforceable
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:consideration
1003:
999:
995:
990:
987:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
959:
954:
952:
948:
944:
943:
936:
931:
929:
925:
919:
914:
912:
908:
907:
900:
897:
890:
888:
884:
880:
879:
868:
866:
862:
856:
851:
849:
845:
843:
839:
837:
836:
831:
827:
817:
815:
811:
807:
803:
793:
791:
787:
782:
778:
777:
772:
771:mutual assent
768:
764:
753:
748:
746:
741:
739:
734:
733:
731:
730:
724:
720:
716:
713:
709:
706:
702:
699:
695:
691:
688:
685:
683:jurisdictions
682:
678:
677:
675:
674:
670:
669:
664:
661:
659:
656:
654:
650:
646:
643:
641:
638:
636:
633:
632:
631:
630:
626:
622:
621:
616:
615:United States
613:
609:
606:
604:
601:
600:
598:
596:
593:
591:
588:
586:
583:
581:
578:
576:
573:
571:
568:
567:
566:
565:
561:
560:
555:
552:
550:
547:
546:
545:
544:
540:
539:
532:
529:
528:
526:
523:
520:
517:
516:
515:
514:
510:
509:
504:
503:
499:
497:
494:
492:
489:
487:
486:
482:
480:
477:
476:
475:
474:
471:
468:
467:
462:
459:
455:
454:penal damages
451:
448:
447:
446:
445:Money damages
443:
441:
438:
437:
436:
435:
432:
429:
428:
423:
420:
418:
415:
413:
410:
408:
405:
403:
400:
398:
395:
394:
393:
392:
389:
386:
385:
380:
377:
375:
372:
370:
367:
365:
362:
360:
357:
356:
355:
354:
350:
349:
342:
339:
338:
337:
334:
330:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
315:
313:
310:
309:
308:
305:
301:
298:
297:
296:
293:
291:
288:
287:
286:
285:
282:
279:
278:
273:
270:
268:
267:
263:
261:
258:
256:
253:
251:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
240:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
224:Unclean hands
222:
220:
219:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
203:
200:
198:
195:
191:
188:
186:
185:Impossibility
183:
181:
178:
177:
176:
175:Force majeure
173:
171:
170:
166:
162:
159:
158:
157:
156:public policy
153:
150:
148:
144:
141:
139:
136:
134:
131:
130:
129:
128:
125:
122:
121:
116:
113:
111:
108:
106:
105:Consideration
103:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
71:
68:
66:
63:
62:
61:
60:
56:
55:
51:
47:
46:
43:
40:
39:
34:
30:
26:
22:
1298:Contract law
1281:
1264:the original
1254:
1243:. Retrieved
1239:the original
1234:
1225:
1216:
1205:. Retrieved
1201:
1178:
1173:
1165:
1160:
1152:
1143:
1133:
1128:
1118:
1110:
1105:
1088:
1031:
1021:
1009:
993:
991:
988:
983:
961:
956:
940:
938:
933:
923:
921:
916:
904:
902:
892:
876:
874:
860:
858:
853:
846:
840:
833:
832:in his work
823:
801:
799:
781:contract law
775:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
658:Criminal law
640:Property law
595:Saudi Arabia
500:
483:
264:
216:
167:
85:Posting rule
74:
42:Contract law
1235:Gaddy Wells
1123:determined"
945:(1923) the
896:English law
887:postal rule
883:Thesiger LJ
496:Restitution
307:Arbitration
1292:Categories
1275:References
1245:2022-03-25
1207:2021-07-06
1202:Law Planet
1151:(1897) 10
1002:acceptance
992:Under the
926:2 KB 571,
909:1 QB 256,
698:pandectist
681:common law
461:Rescission
369:Delegation
364:Assignment
152:Illegality
100:Firm offer
23:. For the
16:Legal term
1046:per minas
964:reasoning
935:contract.
810:objective
786:condition
700:tradition
570:Australia
417:Deviation
324:Mediation
57:Formation
25:talk show
1074:Contract
1068:See also
1018:legality
1014:capacity
968:contract
949:said an
928:Atkin LJ
911:Bowen LJ
838:(1840).
806:evidence
790:contract
663:Evidence
635:Tort law
608:Scotland
431:Remedies
374:Novation
197:Hardship
124:Defences
65:Capacity
972:promise
796:History
653:estates
585:Ireland
202:Set-off
143:Threats
138:Mistake
1284:(1876)
1042:duress
930:said,
913:said,
814:assent
651:, and
649:trusts
623:Other
575:Canada
27:, see
1097:Notes
1052:, or
1044:(see
1034:fraud
998:offer
980:moral
773:, or
671:Notes
645:Wills
627:areas
590:India
452:, or
402:Cover
1058:void
1024:.
1022:form
1016:and
962:The
953:is,
154:and
145:and
1155:457
1060:or
1048:),
939:In
922:In
903:In
875:In
625:law
1294::
1233:.
1200:.
1188:^
1168:1.
1064:.
1040:,
1036:,
1012:,
1008:,
1004:,
1000:,
889:,
769:,
647:,
1248:.
1210:.
1113:1
751:e
744:t
737:v
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
