In principle, a treaty is a legally binding „meeting of minds“ between the parties. It is not the tacit intention in the minds of the parties that decides whether there has been „a meeting“. The test is objective: how would a reasonable person interpret the interaction? What made it possible to move from the long-standing concept of subjective theory to the popularity of the objective treaty theory that is now being used in U.S. courts? Scholars agree that many prominent judges have made decisions in contractual disputes that apply the objective theory of treaties that began in the late nineteenth century. These included U.S. Supreme Court justices and leading contract law authorities such as Christopher Columbus Langdell and Samuel Williston, who argued that it was difficult for a person to subjectively determine another person`s thoughts and read a person`s thoughts. Subjective approach Of contract law refers to a legal doctrine that considers that a treaty concluded on the basis of a subjective conjunction of minds is legally binding.3 min read This legal concept has become since the end of the nineteenth century the measure of the determination of the intention of the parties in an agreement. Objective contract theory replaces the previous standard, known as the subjective theory of contracts or „meetings of minds,“ which was often applied in the early 1800s. As the great contract law student Samuel Williston put it: „It was a consequence of the emphasis on ego and individual will that the constitution of a treaty seems impossible, unless the will of the parties agrees. As a result, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, we find the dominant idea that there must be a „meeting of spirits“ (a new expression) to form a treatise. Samuel Williston, „Freedom of Contract,“ Cornell Law Quarterly 6 (1921), 365. If the hoax is not obvious and a reasonable listener believed that an offer had been made, the speaker risked the formation of a contract that was not intended.
It is the objective manifestations of the supplier that count and not secret, uns saying intentions. If the words or actions of a party, measured on a reasonable scale, show the intention to accept the matter in question, that agreement is concluded, and it does not matter what the party`s real but unspoken mental state may be about it. Barnes v. Treece, 549 p.2d 1152 (Wash. App. 1976). A contract has absolutely nothing to do with the personal or individual intention of the parties. .