For the assumption, the essential requirement is that, from a subjective point of view, the parties behave in a way that demonstrates their consent. After this session of the theory of the spirit of the treaty, a party was able to resist a claim of violation by demonstrating that it did not intend to be bound by the agreement, only if it seemed subjective that it intended to do so. This is not satisfactory because one party does not have the opportunity to know the undisclosed intentions of another party. One party can only act on the basis of what the other party objectively reveals (Lucy V Zehmer, 196 Va 493 84 S.E. 2d 516) to be its intention. Therefore, a real meeting of minds is not necessary. In fact, it has been argued that the idea of “meeting minds” is a very modern mistake: the judges of the 19th century spoke of the “ad idem consensus” that modern teachers wrongly translated into “meeting spirits”, but which in fact means “agreement with the same cause”.  The offer cannot be accepted if the applicant is aware of the supplier`s death.  In cases where the bidder accepts in ignorance of the death, the contract may still be valid, although this proposal depends on the nature of the offer. If the contract is personal to the supplier, the offer is destroyed by death. The agreement must be supported by a counterparty against a commitment. The promiseor will ask for consideration in exchange for the promise the promise wants to be obtained. The consideration must be something precious.
The value of the consideration does not, in the legal sense, require that it correspond to or correspond to the value of the promise. A little bit of face value may even be a sufficient consideration. In essence, the attitude of the courts is that the courts will not easily find that the element of the consideration has not been fulfilled. It`s almost always happy. Whether the two parties agreed on the terms or whether a valid offer was made is a matter governed by applicable law. In some jurisdictions, courts use criteria known as “objective testing,” which was explained in the main English case Smith v. Hughes.   In Smith v.
Hughes, the court pointed out that, when it comes to a valid offer, it is not the party`s own (subjective) intentions, but how a reasonable person would understand the situation. The objective test has been largely replaced in the United Kingdom since the introduction of the Brussels regime, in conjunction with the Rome I regulation. A binding contract is established when an offer is accepted by the bidder. A hypothesis must reflect the offer. This means that acceptance must be unqualified and unconditional of all the terms set out in the offer. There must therefore be an appropriate offer and acceptance. Therefore, the rejection of a qualified offer or acceptance or a change in the terms of the offer does not constitute an acceptance that could lead to a valid agreement. Instead, the offer is over. In the event that there is a change in conditions, it would be considered a counter-offer open to acceptance. An invitation to treatment is not an offer, but an indication of a person`s willingness to negotiate a contract.