Let's recap: Remember that in order to form a contract the parties must have a "meeting of the minds" in other words, there must be an agreement to form a contract. Accordingly, the element of intent is of prime importance. In contract law, intent is determined by what is called the objective theory of contracts, not by the personal or subjective intent or belief of a party. The facts are interpreted by a reasonable person standard (rather than by the party's own secret, non-spoken, or subjective intentions) such as what the party said when entering the contract and the circumstances surrounding the transaction.

1) Is it fair for a court to hold that parties are bound in contract even though one of the parties later claims that he/she did not intend to form a contract?

(2) Generally, should the courts give more weight to subjective intent in determining whether a contract has been formed?

(3) Why or why not. (include what is meant by "subjective intent")