What Is a Meeting of the Minds?
A meeting of the minds is an essential element in the validation of a legally binding contract. Meeting of the minds refers to the comprehension and mutual agreement or mutual assent of both parties to a contract’s terms. Arbitrarily it denotes the time of mutual agreement though the acts of mutual agreement need not necessarily occur simultaneously.
Understanding Meeting of the Minds
Drafting and creating a legally binding contract can take time and requires several key elements. Ultimately, for a contract to become legally binding, a meeting of the minds must occur. Meeting of the minds denotes the time at which both parties have provided mutual comprehension and acceptance of the terms. Mutual acceptance is usually consummated with signatures of agreement from both parties.
Meeting of the minds is synonymous with mutual agreement, mutual assent, and consensus ad idem. It is the time at which all parties acknowledge that they fully understand and agree to all of the terms of a contract.
- Meeting of the minds refers to comprehension and mutual agreement of all obligations within a contract.
- Meeting of the minds is a critical element of a contract associated with acceptance and acknowledgment.
- It can be difficult to challenge a contract after a meeting of the minds has occurred.
- If contract issues, challenges, or court actions arise, it can be left up to the court to decide the interpretations and intentions of contract elements and language.
Elements of a Contract
There are several elements associated with creating a legally binding contract that can be upheld with the courts. The parties signing a contract may or may not be involved in the contract’s drafting. Oftentimes, both parties negotiate the terms of a contract until all of the provisions are agreed upon. In many cases, an offeror may have a standard contract that is not necessarily negotiable. In all cases, there is mutuality of obligation, meaning both parties have an obligation to one another. In all contracts there is an offeror and offeree. Contracts also require capacity, which is an element stating that the parties involved are of adequate mental capacity to understand and agree on the terms.
Meeting of the minds is a part of the element of acceptance. Acceptance is usually acknowledged and denoted by a signature. As such, contracts are also usually required to be detailed and signed in writing.
Contracts become active once they are signed. This leads to the element of fulfillment and delivery on the contract’s terms. After a contract has been signed, both parties are obligated to fulfill their obligations and deliver what is required as detailed in the contract.
Elements of a contract help to validate a contract if it is disputed in court.
Contract Issues and Court Actions
The elements of a contract are in place to help ensure that a contract is upheld by the individuals involved and viable in the case of issues or court actions. A meeting of the minds and mutual acknowledgment of a contract’s terms can make it difficult to renege on a contract without repercussions.
Contract disputes, however, can occur later on down the line if issues arise. In some cases, elements of a contract can be questioned. A meeting of the minds denotes that both parties understand and agree so, therefore, capacity is usually one element that can be examined if a party suggests a misunderstanding. Some parties may be able to prove that a successful meeting of the minds never actually occurred because the parties involved had two completely different interpretations causing a clear misunderstanding which can invalidate a contract. Typically, if the court is involved it will base the interpretation of contract clauses on the reasonable understanding of a person with standard knowledge of the industry.
If the court finds that interpretations of a contract clause are unclear or seem to be intentionally vague, the Contra Proferentem Rule may be enforced. The Contra Proferentem Rule helps to mitigate intentionally vague contract language for the benefit of either party. The Contra Proferentem Rule requires that the court rule in favor of the plaintiff who feels that contract language is ambiguously detrimental or harmful.
Overall, it can be left up to the courts to decide the interpretations and intentions of contract language. There is a whole field of study dedicated to contract law known as contract theory. There are also several standard elements, rules, and legal precedents that can govern a court’s decision.
Examples of Challenging Issues
Contracts are used in a multitude of situations and scenarios. This can create an opportunity for a vast amount of misunderstandings, mistakes, and misinterpretations. A breakdown in communication can potentially disrupt the successful achievement of a meeting of the minds and call to question its very existence. Below are some examples of challenging contract issues.
A business needing to resupply its inventory of toys speaks with a local supplier. The businessman indicates that he is looking to buy the supplier's stock, which he understands to mean the supply of toys that the supplier has. The supplier thinks that the businessman is looking to buy out his business by acquiring his "stock" of shares. While both parties agree contractually with an acknowledged meeting of the minds, they clearly did not agree to the same material exchange and a court could rule that no meeting of the minds actually occurred to make the contract valid for either party.
A contract might state that a defendant must pay a plaintiff for use of a product or service for a specified amount. There might even be a hell or high water clause to enforce the plaintiff’s right to payment. The defendant might argue that their understanding of the contract allowed for payments to be made at a time interval that was different from the plaintiff. They might claim the payments would be broken up over a longer period of time if the contract does not include detailed language establishing due dates. In this case, such a defense argument might fail in court if it can be established that a reasonable person reviewing the contract would indeed interpret its intent and purpose with the same regard that the plaintiff presented in their argument. This would imply that the meeting of the minds alluded to the understanding of certain payment terms.