Contract law imputes an intent corresponding to an individual’s words or actions. Mutual assent is not always the parties’ actual intent. As long as a reasonable person would believe there to be an offer + the person accepting actually believes it, and the acceptance is valid (by the terms of the offer), then you have a valid offer + acceptance= mutual assent. “Meeting of the minds” or ad idem is stupid to me bc the minds don’t actually have to meet, we just care about whether their manifestations meet.
![Contract Law: Acceptance of the Offer & the Mailbox Rule [LEAP Preview]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GQ0VfUU3U9s/mqdefault.jpg)
![Contract Law Defenses: Duress, Undue Influence, Illegality, & Unconscionability [LEAP Preview]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XbqguVhMYOQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Contract Law: Termination of the Offer and Irrevocable Offers [LEAP Preview]](/img/n.gif)
Excellent explanation.
Sometimes I wish I could sell YOU a dry erase marker for $5!
Nopeeee
thanks for this!!
Thank you
North Carolina, Great.
doesn't Lucy v. Zehmer negate the need for mutual assent?
Contract law imputes an intent corresponding to an individual’s words or actions. Mutual assent is not always the parties’ actual intent. As long as a reasonable person would believe there to be an offer + the person accepting actually believes it, and the acceptance is valid (by the terms of the offer), then you have a valid offer + acceptance= mutual assent. “Meeting of the minds” or ad idem is stupid to me bc the minds don’t actually have to meet, we just care about whether their manifestations meet.
Hopefully you can add me at the end jumping in joy screaming F#@k quasi judges