Question

Courts stick to objective (reasonable person) standards when evaluating offers and acceptances. Juries are not asked to “get inside someone’s head”, they are instructed to determine what a reasonable person would think of offerors’ and offerees’ statements. Is this practice reasonable? Would it be better if the law directly considered whether people wanted to make contracts?

Answer 1

It is true that it is not possible for jury to get into someone’s head. Court always makes objective assessment when evaluating offers and acceptance. This practice is very much reasonable. The court will always determine the action of offeree.

 

For example if A offers to sell his pen to B and B shake hands with A, then court will take this action objectively and decides that how a reasonable man can react. The handshake can be taken as positive to the offer and is considered as acceptance.

 

Court can never peep into the offeror’s or offeree’s head. It cannot be said that B does not want to accept the offer made by B and court should directly considered that what B wants. There are certain situations where court have to look objectively otherwise, most of the contracts contains clear acceptance.

There are certain situations where court have to look objectively otherwise, most of the contracts contains clear acceptance.