contract-law
What is agreement in the same sense?
<p>I'm looking at <a href="https://theintactone.com/2019/03/06/lab-u1-topic-1-law-of-contract-definition-essentials-and-types-of-contract/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this site</a> which writes to state</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The parties to the agreement must have agreed about the subject matter of the agreement in the same sense and at the same time</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are simplistic instances online such as the one about an object being purchased from an antique store by a customer for it's aesthetics - and then being discovered to be a fake whereby an action for breach of contract is <em>not</em> applicable because the customer apparently made the purchase for it's aesthetics.</p>
<p>I don't understand this because it seems to me the purchase being made in an antique shop would mandate a fake immediately becomes a breach of contract.</p>
<p>How is the 'same sense and same time' worded into a contract?</p>

<p>The site that you provide is explaining basics of contract law, and that quote attempts to explicate (and they refer to) the Latin maxim <em>consensus ad idem</em>, generally explained in modern language as &quot;meeting of the minds&quot;. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is a brief overview of that legal concept. The basis idea is that the parties are talking about the same thing. An example of a lack of meeting of the minds is <a href="https://casetext.com/analysis/no-meeting-of-the-minds-settlement-agreement-void" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>, where a complainant agreed to withdraw a complaint in exchange for a service pin plus &quot;any/all straight time compensation&quot; lost. It was later established that the complainant believed that this included time off from work on sick leave, but the agency held that this had already been compensated – thus the parties did not agree to what was &quot;compensation lost&quot;. The &quot;agreement&quot; was thus found to be void, because the parties did not in fact agree on the meaning of the terms.</p>
<p>Your purported example would not indicate a lack of meeting of the minds, though it might indicate fraud. A lack of meeting of the minds could arise if the seller intended objects A, C to be items on offer but the buyer believed objects A, B, D to be the offer. It should be noted that the law does not let a person get out of a contract simply by declaring &quot;I thought that...&quot;, the courts will look at the objective evidence as to what the parties did believe.</p>

<p>I believe by saying &quot;the parties must agree in the same sense&quot; the site means that they must have the same understanding of the contract. This is more commonly expressed by the phrase &quot;a valid contract must be based on a meeting of minds&quot;. That is, if party A thinks the contract means one thing, and party B thinks it means something quite different, there is no valid contract at all.</p>
<p>For example, if A says 'I will sell you the Chevy for $1,000&quot; and B accepts. A intended to sell the model Chevy displayed on nthe wall, B intended to buy the car in A's driveway. There is no meeting of minds, and thus no valid contract.</p>
<p>That site, in my view, has several examples of poor writing, and several errors of substance. I would be cautious in relying on it.</p>
<h3>Poor Writing</h3>
<ul>
<li>&quot;<em>The parties to the agreement must have agreed about the subject matter of the agreement in the same sense and at the same time</em>&quot; The meaning is unclear.</li>
<li>&quot;*An agreement may be social agreement or legal agreement&quot; Improper omission of articles.</li>
<li>&quot;<em>it is <strong>necessary</strong> that the consent of parties to the contact <strong>must</strong> be free.</em>&quot; Redundant. One of the boldface words should be removed.</li>
<li>&quot;<em>According to Contract Act, a contract may be oral or in writing.</em>&quot; Omission of required article.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Legal Inaccuracies</h3>
<ul>
<li>&quot;<em>But only those agreements which are enforceable in a court of law are contracts.</em>&quot; Not correct. An agreement might, for example, be unenforceable for staleness, such as a debt that cannot be collected after a lapse of years, but it is still a contract.</li>
<li>&quot;<em>Agreements of a social or domestic nature do not create legal relations and as such cannot give rise to a contract.</em>&quot; Marriage is a valid and enforceable contract. So are domestic partnership contracts.</li>
<li>&quot;<em>Consideration has been defined as the price paid by one party for the promise of the other.</em>&quot; Consideration may be direct transfer of title and possession in an immediate sale, with no promise involved. Also, while most common-law countries hold to the rule that a valid contract requires consideration, many civil-law countries do not.</li>
<li>&quot;<em>Thus, a contract entered into by a minor or by a lunatic is void.</em>&quot; Contracts by minors are, in many but not all cases voidable, but they are not void just because one party is a minor.</li>
</ul>

<blockquote>
<p>How is the 'same sense and same time' worded into a contract?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some terms are presumed or implied in the contract. There is no need to formulate them.</p>
<p>Unless the store is manifestly in the business of selling replicas --antique or otherwise-- of objects, it is reasonable for the buyer to presume that the goods an antique shop offers are authentic. In the case of an online purchase, it would be quite a stretch to expect buyers to realize or even inquire whether the items are fake.</p>
<p>To overcome the aforementioned presumption, the shop would have to inform the buyer that the item is fake.</p>
