However, awareness of a legal obligation is not established by each party`s subjective understanding of terms, but by “objective indicators” based on what each party has said and done. [9] [10] The concept of consensus ad idem has sometimes been controversial. Many people don`t read contracts accurately when they sign them and don`t understand the concepts they sign their name to. These individuals may argue that they did not fully understand the contract when it was signed and that they cannot be held responsible for the breaches. However, the signing of a treaty is also accepted in the community of law to indicate that someone has read, understood and renegotiated unfavorable terms, so the defense may not be accepted. Ad idem is a Latin word for “meeting of spirits”. If two parties understand the terms of a contract in the same way, then it is said that the parties are “ad idem” in the general conditions. Such coincidence is essential for a valid contract. According to the formalist theory of contracts, each contract must have six elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, meeting of spirits, capacity and legality. Many other contracts, but not all types of contracts, must also be written and signed in the form of the responsible party. [ref. needed] Consensus ad idem means agreement in Latin and contract law, it means that there was agreement between all parties involved.3 min read I signed a legally binding contract when I was hired.
The contract was short and precise. Unfortunately, I reached a consensus ad idem with my manager when I signed a singing contract. Part of me wish I hadn`t understood what I was signing. A fundamental flaw in the way contracts are legally constructed is that it is never completely possible to prove with absolute certainty that the parties involved have had a real convergence of minds. A systematic approach is usually the best way to determine each party`s intentions in relation to the contractual terms in the event of disagreement. The filter applied is how terms and intentions were expressed in both actions and words, as a reasonable person would understand them. When people develop a contract, an offer is renewed and accepted, and the terms of the offer are developed. This is where consensus ad idem comes into play, as the parties discuss the details and focus on crafting a treaty that everyone is happy with.
The contract must contain reasonable consideration, something of value exchanged by all parties, and the capacity to give consent must be demonstrated. The final qualification required for legality is the legality of the contract itself; The other conditions can be met, but if the contract is about something illegal, it cannot stand in court. Whatever may be said in an abstract discussion of the legal view that it is necessary, in order to conclude a valid and binding contract, that the heads of the parties be brought together at the same time, this notion is practically the basis of English law in the field of conclusion of the contract. Thus, if a correspondence-based contract is not absolutely concluded at the time the current offer is accepted by the person to whom the offer is addressed, it is difficult to imagine how the two heads can be brought together at the same time. [7] But on the other hand, it is a legal principle that is as established as the legal concept to which I referred that the minds of both parties must be brought together through mutual communication. An acceptance that remains only in the cest of the acceptor without being effectively and legally communicated to the supplier is not a binding acceptance. Richard Austen-Baker has suggested that the maintenance of the idea of the “meeting of minds” may stem from a misunderstanding of the Latin term consensus ad idem, which actually means “consent to the [same] thing.” [2] It must be demonstrated that the parties have objectively engaged in conduct expressing their consent and a contract is concluded if the parties have fulfilled such a condition. [3] The Latin term consensus ad idem, a “mind agreement,” is used to describe a situation in which people fully understand a contract and their role in it. Consensus or agreement on a contract is considered a necessary condition of a valid contract in many jurisdictions, arguing that people who do not know or understand a contract cannot be held responsible for it. In a written contract, the presence of clauses describing the details of the contract is used to show that a consensus ad idem was reached when drawing up the contract, since everyone who signs the contract should have read and understood the terms.
In contract law, the use of moral phraseology has led to the same confusion, as I have already shown in part, but only partially. Morality deals with the real inner state of the individual`s mind, with what he really intends to do. From Roman times to the present day, this way of dealing has influenced the language of contract law, and the language used has responded to this idea. We speak of a treaty as a meeting of the minds of the parties, and it appears in various cases that there is no treaty because their thoughts have not been satisfied; That is, because they had different intentions or because one party was unaware of the consent of others. But nothing is more certain than the fact that the parties can be bound by a contract to things that neither of them intended to do, and if one does not know the consent of the other. Suppose a contract is executed in due form and in writing in order to make a presentation without mentioning time. One party believes that within a week, the promise will be interpreted as meaning immediate. The other thinks it means when he`s ready. The court says that means within a reasonable time.
Comments are closed.