An Agreement Requires Meeting Of Minds

April 8th, 2021

The elements of a contract are in place to ensure that a contract is respected by the persons concerned and that it is viable in the event of questions or legal proceedings. A meeting of minds and mutual recognition of the terms of the contract can make it difficult to abandon a contract without effect. For example, imagine that your company has to provide inventory in order to get in touch with a supplier near you. You tell the supplier that you want to buy the available stock. The supplier is unhappy with what you are asking for and assumes that you intend to buy your entire business. There has been no meeting of minds because you and the supplier have different goals. Whatever may be said in the abstract discussion of the legal concept, that it is necessary to conclude a valid and binding contract, so that the minds of the parties are brought together on the same date, this term is practically the basis of English law on the purpose of the constitution of the contract. Unless, at the moment when the sustainability of the offer is absolutely completed by the person to whom the offer is addressed, it is difficult to see how the two minds will ever be brought together on the same date… [6] On the other hand, it is a legal principle which, like the legal concept I mentioned, is established that the minds of both parties must be brought together through mutual communication. A hypothesis that remains only within the abbreviation, without being communicated to the supplier by legal implementation, is not a binding hypothesis. A meeting of minds is an essential element in the validation of a legally binding treaty.

The meeting of minds refers to the understanding and mutual consent or mutual agreement of the two parties on the contractual terms. It arbitrarily refers to the timing of mutual agreement, even if acts of mutual unity do not necessarily have to be done at the same time. Sir Frederick Pollock is a person known for explaining the idea of a contract on the basis of a ghost encounter, at a time when he was receiving a great deal of support in the courts. Mutual consent and agreement of the parties to a contract on its content and terms. There can be no doubt that the acceptance of an offer as a standard of ordinary law should be communicated to the supplier of the offer, so that the two minds can meet. If not, the two opinions may differ and there is not the necessary consensus under English law – I am not saying anything about the laws of other countries – to conclude a treaty. The parties eventually met with their lawyer to resolve the contempt claim and obtained what the village claimed to be an enforceable transaction agreement. Ferdinandi denied that the agreement was not an enforceable transaction agreement, as essential conditions had not been agreed. In considering the competing positions, the Court considered whether a viewer concluded that the parties met in all the essential conditions and found that a spectator would not actually achieve this result. In particular, the court referred to communications from the village that described the so-called agreement as a possible solution, a principle of unification and certain outstanding issues.

The problems have been included in the negotiating package and should not end with further communication. In a series of previous articles, I have examined some of the difficulties encountered when the parties do not properly set the contractual terms that dictate rights and responsibilities between them. In cumberland (Village) /Ferdinandi, 2018 BCSC 726 (CanLII), the Court was asked to consider whether there had been a sufficient meeting of minds (ad ditto) on the essential terms of a transaction, resulting in an enforceable contract.

Comments are closed.