Chapter 5: Mutual Assent and Defenses to Contract Formation.

Meeting of the Minds.

The principle of mutual assent is at the core of contract formation, emphasizing that both parties must have a clear understanding and agreement on the terms of the contract. Law students should explore the concept of a "meeting of the minds":

a) Objective Theory of Contracts: Courts use an objective standard to determine whether a meeting of the minds has occurred, focusing on the parties' outward expressions and actions rather than their subjective intentions.

b) Offer and Acceptance: Mutual assent requires the offer and acceptance to correspond in terms and be communicated effectively.

c) Silence as Acceptance: Generally, silence does not constitute acceptance, but there are exceptions based on prior dealings or industry practices.

Mistake, Misrepresentation, and Fraud.

Law students should delve into situations where mutual assent might be lacking due to mistake, misrepresentation, or fraud:

a) Mutual Mistake: When both parties are mistaken about a material fact, the contract may be voidable if the mistake goes to the core of the agreement.

b) Unilateral Mistake: If only one party is mistaken, the contract is typically enforceable unless the other party knew or should have known about the mistake.

c) Misrepresentation: A false statement of material fact can lead to a contract being voidable by the innocent party.

d) Fraud: Intentional misrepresentation of material fact with the intent to deceive can render a contract voidable by the innocent party.

Duress and Undue Influence.

Understanding the defenses of duress and undue influence is crucial for law students to recognize situations where a party's free will might be compromised:

a) Duress: Contracts entered into under duress (coercion or threat) are voidable by the coerced party.

b) Undue Influence: Contracts resulting from undue influence, where one party takes unfair advantage of the other's vulnerability, may be voidable by the influenced party.

Landmark Case: Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. (1965)

The case of Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. highlights the importance of mutual assent and the defense of unconscionability. In this case, the court held that a contract was unenforceable due to unconscionability, as one party took advantage of the other's lack of bargaining power and understanding of the contract terms.

Conclusion.

Understanding mutual assent and the defenses to contract formation is vital for law students to navigate the complexities of contract law. By recognizing situations where parties might lack a true meeting of the minds, where misrepresentation or fraud might occur, and where defenses like duress and undue influence may apply, students can better analyze and evaluate the validity of contracts and related disputes.