For the company, the definition of goal agreements saves time in the business process. Agreement on global and partial objectives avoids duplication and allows for coordination of processes and tasks. In addition, the coordination of day-to-day business processes can be shortened by clear rules and priorities of employee flexibility. Although agreements can be adopted in any form, including unspoken behaviour between the parties, they are generally structured in the form of an offer and acceptance. Single Code of Trade, Section 2-204 (1). These two components will be at the centre of our discussion. However, note that not all agreements in the broadest sense must consist of an offer and acceptance, and it is therefore quite possible that two people will reach an agreement without entering into a contract. For example, people may agree that the weather is pleasant or that it would be better to go to Chinese food rather than watch a foreign movie; In neither case, no contract was entered into. One of the main tasks of contract law is to resolve legally binding agreements – treaties – of agreements that are not. The big differences in the two theories arise when one party asserts that it did not intend to conclude the agreement. Party A, for example, owns a $20,000 car.
Its neighbour, Part B, asks The Party A how much money the money is, which party A would be willing to sell the car. Party A, which has no intention of selling the car, and knows that Party B cannot afford to pay $20,000, says, “I would sell it to you for $1,000.” Party B replies: “Ok, it`s a deal.” Part A states that his offer was not serious and that he never intended to sell the car for that amount. Nevertheless, a court found that Parties A and B had reached a binding agreement – the sale of the car for $1,000 – if a reasonable person in Part B`s position had believed that Part A intended to enter into such an agreement. However, if Party B Party A said it would sell the car for $5, then a court might instead find that a reasonable person would not have believed that Part A wanted to be tied. According to a subjective theory of contracts, Part A could challenge the constitution of a contract by introducing evidence that it did not really intend to be related to its testimony (either $1,000 or $5 in selling price). There is disagreement as to whether the COMMON LAW treaties required judges to determine the subjective intent of the parties to recognize the existence of a contract or whether judges were required to view the parties` external actions and objectively determine whether a contract had been entered into. Some scholars argue that the common law has long used an objective test for contract recognition. Other scholars and writers argue that the widespread use of objective contract theory in the courts was a much more recent phenomenon, perhaps developed during the late 19th century.