Recapping, 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, rather than by the party's own secret or subjective intentions, such as what the party said when entering the contract and the circumstances surrounding the transaction.

For this assignment respond to the following: Is it fair for a court to hold that parties are bound in contract even though one of the parties later claims that it did not intend to form a contract? Under what circumstances would the court do so? Generally, should the courts give more weight to objective or subjective intent in determining whether a contract has been formed? Why or why not. (For this assignment, include what is meant by "subjective intent"?)