866:
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.
61:
910:
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.
928:
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
909:
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
865:
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
904:
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
794:
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
968:
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
1133:
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
322:
945:
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
888:
1000:
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.
327:
870:
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
541:
590:
715:
282:
952:
700:
3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions
43:
1313:
760:
1270:
1031:. 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
811:
Richard Austen-Baker has suggested that the perpetuation of the idea of "meeting of minds" may come from a misunderstanding of the Latin term
916:
855:
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.
852:
346:
310:
1241:
339:
993:
one rather than a legal one should not be enforceable. It is only when all parties involved are aware of the formation of a
845:
605:
195:
31:
90:
836:
753:
704:
625:
351:
858:
600:
559:
471:
1094:
961:
820:
407:
120:
840:
729:
580:
389:
239:
875:
305:
265:
190:
166:
148:
1308:
746:
733:
722:
595:
585:
529:
153:
1175:
R. Austen-Baker, 'Gilmore and the
Strange Case of the Failure of Contract to Die After All' (2002) 18
1120:
R. Austen-Baker, 'Gilmore and the
Strange Case of the Failure of Contract to Die After All' (2002) 18
1100:
1089:
1012:
1008:
613:
450:
300:
179:
80:
1145:
1274:
369:
260:
125:
105:
655:
618:
460:
432:
398:
291:
276:
270:
244:
1190:
1064:
512:
501:
222:
171:
162:
143:
100:
1208:
990:
957:
535:
422:
417:
379:
374:
217:
200:
39:
1048:
538:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith)
427:
157:
134:
1060:
1024:
816:
796:
732:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to
673:
564:
495:
480:
228:
75:
1302:
1072:
1016:
464:
212:
185:
115:
1249:
1159:
986:
929:
English law - I say nothing about the laws of other countries - to make a contract.
668:
663:
650:
441:
95:
60:
989:
are to be used. Equally, any such agreement where the obligation is primarily a
906:
897:
893:
506:
412:
317:
234:
1068:
827:, and a contract will be formed when the parties have met such a requirement.
824:
708:
691:
110:
985:
between friends over simple personal matters should not be a situation where
1056:
974:
659:
334:
35:
878:, and that this confusion may be the result of recent ignorance of Latin.
1084:
1028:
978:
938:
921:
800:
791:
489:
384:
207:
52:
982:
455:
17:
30:
This article is about the legal concept. For the Four Tops album, see
1231:
261 U.S. 592, 597, 58 Ct.Cl. 709, 43 S.Ct. 425, 67 L.Ed. 816 (1923).
1052:
1044:
874:("agreement to the same ") which is an undoubted requirement of
815:, which actually means "agreement to the thing". There must be
645:
635:
889:
Household Fire and
Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant
799:
or element is considered a requirement to the formation of a
861:
wrote in 1897 that a meeting of minds was really a fiction.
725:
both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces
728:
7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the
American
1149:, 8 vols. (Berlin: Veit, 1840–9) online, in German
823:perspective, engaged in conduct manifesting their
542:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law
1271:"Ward v. Williams, Court of Appeals of Arkansas"
981:that they were not even aware existed. A mutual
966:
943:
926:
902:
863:
697:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions
1043:Mutual assent is vitiated by actions such as
754:
8:
953:Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States
1202:
1200:
734:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation
761:
747:
48:
44:Robert Sheckley short stories bibliography
1007:, every contract must have six elements:
896:said, in the course of a judgment on the
42:. For the short novel by R.Sheckley, see
1209:"Balfour vs Balfour Case Summary (1919)"
977:is that a party should not be held to a
839:is usually credited with developing the
1113:
681:
633:
572:
551:
521:
479:
440:
397:
361:
290:
252:
133:
67:
51:
530:Duty of honest contractual performance
917:Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
718:of International Commercial Contracts
7:
1146:System des heutigen Römischen Rechts
846:System des heutigen Römischen Rechts
819:that the parties had each, from an
707:and other civil codes based on the
25:
997:is there a meeting of the minds.
532:(or doctrine of abuse of rights)
347:Enforcement of foreign judgments
311:Hague Choice of Court Convention
59:
1194:as supporting this proposition.
1314:Legal doctrines and principles
340:Singapore Mediation Convention
1:
1067:. This may render a contract
714:5 Explicitly rejected by the
481:Quasi-contractual obligations
1143:Friedrich Carl von Savigny,
1005:formalist theory of contract
32:Meeting of the Minds (album)
1188:Thesiger LJ then refers to
1158:Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.,
1330:
1293:The Principles of Contract
1207:Bhoomika CB (2021-05-13).
837:Friedrich Carl von Savigny
352:Hague Judgments Convention
29:
876:synallagmatic contracting
703:4 Specific to the German
1095:Agreement in English law
962:implied in fact contract
831:Concept in academic work
408:Anticipatory repudiation
158:unequal bargaining power
1177:Journal of Contract Law
1122:Journal of Contract Law
841:will theory of contract
803:in some jurisdictions.
730:Uniform Commercial Code
705:BĂĽrgerliches Gesetzbuch
390:Third-party beneficiary
362:Rights of third parties
240:Accord and satisfaction
971:
948:
931:
912:
868:
461:Liquidated, stipulated
306:Forum selection clause
191:Frustration of purpose
1160:'The Path of the Law'
859:Oliver Wendell Holmes
853:Sir Frederick Pollock
776:(also referred to as
723:Canadian contract law
91:Abstraction principle
1242:"Texas contract law"
1101:Raffles v Wichelhaus
1090:Offer and acceptance
1021:meeting of the minds
774:Meeting of the minds
552:Related areas of law
451:Specific performance
301:Choice of law clause
266:Contract of adhesion
180:Culpa in contrahendo
86:Meeting of the minds
81:Offer and acceptance
892:(1879) 4 Ex D 216,
716:UNIDROIT Principles
490:Promissory estoppel
370:Privity of contract
323:New York Convention
283:UNIDROIT Principles
126:Collateral contract
121:Implication-in-fact
106:Invitation to treat
1252:on 2 February 2009
1164:Harvard Law Review
536:Duty of good faith
433:Fundamental breach
399:Breach of contract
328:UNCITRAL Model Law
292:Dispute resolution
277:Contra proferentem
271:Integration clause
245:Exculpatory clause
1191:Adams v. Lindsell
1065:misrepresentation
935:Balfour v Balfour
872:consensus ad idem
813:consensus ad idem
790:) is a phrase in
787:consensus ad idem
771:
770:
614:England and Wales
522:Duties of parties
513:Negotiorum gestio
502:Unjust enrichment
223:Statute of frauds
172:Unconscionability
144:Misrepresentation
101:Mirror image rule
16:(Redirected from
1321:
1291:Sir F. Pollock,
1279:
1278:
1273:. Archived from
1267:
1261:
1260:
1258:
1257:
1248:. Archived from
1238:
1232:
1229:
1223:
1222:
1220:
1219:
1204:
1195:
1186:
1180:
1173:
1167:
1156:
1150:
1141:
1135:
1131:
1125:
1118:
1039:Vices of consent
995:legal obligation
958:US Supreme Court
778:mutual agreement
763:
756:
749:
591:China (mainland)
560:Conflict of laws
423:Efficient breach
418:Exclusion clause
218:Illusory promise
201:Impracticability
63:
49:
40:Meeting of Minds
21:
1329:
1328:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1299:
1298:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1255:
1253:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1230:
1226:
1217:
1215:
1206:
1205:
1198:
1187:
1183:
1174:
1170:
1157:
1153:
1142:
1138:
1132:
1128:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1081:
1049:undue influence
1041:
884:
882:Use in case law
833:
809:
767:
738:
610:United Kingdom
573:By jurisdiction
47:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1327:
1325:
1317:
1316:
1311:
1301:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1277:on 2011-07-21.
1262:
1233:
1224:
1196:
1181:
1168:
1151:
1136:
1126:
1112:
1111:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1080:
1077:
1061:mutual mistake
1040:
1037:
987:legal remedies
969:understanding.
883:
880:
835:German jurist
832:
829:
808:
805:
769:
768:
766:
765:
758:
751:
743:
740:
739:
737:
736:
726:
721:6 Specific to
719:
712:
701:
698:
695:
690:1 Specific to
687:
684:
683:
679:
678:
677:
676:
671:
666:
653:
648:
640:
639:
631:
630:
629:
628:
623:
622:
621:
616:
608:
603:
598:
593:
588:
583:
575:
574:
570:
569:
568:
567:
565:Commercial law
562:
554:
553:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
533:
524:
523:
519:
518:
517:
516:
509:
504:
499:
496:Quantum meruit
492:
484:
483:
477:
476:
475:
474:
469:
468:
467:
453:
445:
444:
438:
437:
436:
435:
430:
425:
420:
415:
410:
402:
401:
395:
394:
393:
392:
387:
382:
377:
372:
364:
363:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
344:
343:
342:
332:
331:
330:
325:
315:
314:
313:
303:
295:
294:
288:
287:
286:
285:
280:
273:
268:
263:
261:Parol evidence
255:
254:
253:Interpretation
250:
249:
248:
247:
242:
237:
232:
229:Non est factum
225:
220:
215:
210:
205:
204:
203:
198:
193:
183:
176:
175:
174:
160:
151:
146:
138:
137:
131:
130:
129:
128:
123:
118:
113:
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
83:
78:
70:
69:
65:
64:
56:
55:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1326:
1315:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1304:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1276:
1272:
1266:
1263:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1237:
1234:
1228:
1225:
1214:
1210:
1203:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1140:
1137:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1117:
1114:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1076:
1074:
1073:unenforceable
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1038:
1036:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1017:consideration
1014:
1010:
1006:
1001:
998:
996:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
970:
965:
963:
959:
955:
954:
947:
942:
940:
936:
930:
925:
923:
919:
918:
911:
908:
901:
899:
895:
891:
890:
881:
879:
877:
873:
867:
862:
860:
856:
854:
850:
848:
847:
842:
838:
830:
828:
826:
822:
818:
814:
806:
804:
802:
798:
793:
789:
788:
783:
782:mutual assent
779:
775:
764:
759:
757:
752:
750:
745:
744:
742:
741:
735:
731:
727:
724:
720:
717:
713:
710:
706:
702:
699:
696:
694:jurisdictions
693:
689:
688:
686:
685:
680:
675:
672:
670:
667:
665:
661:
657:
654:
652:
649:
647:
644:
643:
642:
641:
637:
632:
627:
626:United States
624:
620:
617:
615:
612:
611:
609:
607:
604:
602:
599:
597:
594:
592:
589:
587:
584:
582:
579:
578:
577:
576:
571:
566:
563:
561:
558:
557:
556:
555:
550:
543:
540:
539:
537:
534:
531:
528:
527:
526:
525:
520:
515:
514:
510:
508:
505:
503:
500:
498:
497:
493:
491:
488:
487:
486:
485:
482:
478:
473:
470:
466:
465:penal damages
462:
459:
458:
457:
456:Money damages
454:
452:
449:
448:
447:
446:
443:
439:
434:
431:
429:
426:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
406:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
391:
388:
386:
383:
381:
378:
376:
373:
371:
368:
367:
366:
365:
360:
353:
350:
349:
348:
345:
341:
338:
337:
336:
333:
329:
326:
324:
321:
320:
319:
316:
312:
309:
308:
307:
304:
302:
299:
298:
297:
296:
293:
289:
284:
281:
279:
278:
274:
272:
269:
267:
264:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
251:
246:
243:
241:
238:
236:
235:Unclean hands
233:
231:
230:
226:
224:
221:
219:
216:
214:
211:
209:
206:
202:
199:
197:
196:Impossibility
194:
192:
189:
188:
187:
186:Force majeure
184:
182:
181:
177:
173:
170:
169:
168:
167:public policy
164:
161:
159:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:
142:
141:
140:
139:
136:
132:
127:
124:
122:
119:
117:
116:Consideration
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
37:
33:
19:
1309:Contract law
1292:
1275:the original
1265:
1254:. Retrieved
1250:the original
1245:
1236:
1227:
1216:. Retrieved
1212:
1189:
1184:
1176:
1171:
1163:
1154:
1144:
1139:
1129:
1121:
1116:
1099:
1042:
1032:
1020:
1004:
1002:
999:
994:
972:
967:
951:
949:
944:
934:
932:
927:
915:
913:
903:
887:
885:
871:
869:
864:
857:
851:
844:
843:in his work
834:
812:
810:
792:contract law
786:
785:
781:
777:
773:
772:
669:Criminal law
651:Property law
606:Saudi Arabia
511:
494:
275:
227:
178:
96:Posting rule
85:
53:Contract law
1246:Gaddy Wells
1134:determined"
956:(1923) the
907:English law
898:postal rule
894:Thesiger LJ
507:Restitution
318:Arbitration
1303:Categories
1286:References
1256:2022-03-25
1218:2021-07-06
1213:Law Planet
1162:(1897) 10
1013:acceptance
1003:Under the
937:2 KB 571,
920:1 QB 256,
709:pandectist
692:common law
472:Rescission
380:Delegation
375:Assignment
163:Illegality
111:Firm offer
34:. For the
27:Legal term
1057:per minas
975:reasoning
946:contract.
821:objective
797:condition
711:tradition
581:Australia
428:Deviation
335:Mediation
68:Formation
36:talk show
1085:Contract
1079:See also
1029:legality
1025:capacity
979:contract
960:said an
939:Atkin LJ
922:Bowen LJ
849:(1840).
817:evidence
801:contract
674:Evidence
646:Tort law
619:Scotland
442:Remedies
385:Novation
208:Hardship
135:Defences
76:Capacity
983:promise
807:History
664:estates
596:Ireland
213:Set-off
154:Threats
149:Mistake
18:Ad idem
1295:(1876)
1053:duress
941:said,
924:said,
825:assent
662:, and
660:trusts
634:Other
586:Canada
38:, see
1108:Notes
1063:, or
1055:(see
1045:fraud
1009:offer
991:moral
784:, or
682:Notes
656:Wills
638:areas
601:India
463:, or
413:Cover
1069:void
1035:.
1033:form
1027:and
973:The
964:is,
165:and
156:and
1166:457
1071:or
1059:),
950:In
933:In
914:In
886:In
636:law
1305::
1244:.
1211:.
1199:^
1179:1.
1075:.
1051:,
1047:,
1023:,
1019:,
1015:,
1011:,
900:,
780:,
658:,
1259:.
1221:.
1124:1
762:e
755:t
748:v
46:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
