Although objective treaty theory applies in virtually every legal order in the United States, some aspects of subjectivity are nevertheless present in American law. Thus, many of the reasons why a party or party can avoid a contract, such as errors or constraints, are based on the subjective beliefs or intentions of the parties. If both parties explicitly state that they are not committed to an agreement, a court will not recognize the agreement as enforceable. The court would also refuse to find a contract if one party did not intend to be bound and the other party knew or should have known that the first party did not intend to enter into a binding agreement. Since the end of the 19th century, this legal concept has become the measure of determining the intent of the parties at the end of the agreement. Objective contract theory replaces the previous standard, known as the subjective theory of contracts or “meeting spirits,” which was generally applied in the early 1800s. The main determinant of the validity of a contract is therefore the external acts or benefits of the parties, not the internal mental state or intent of the parties to the agreement. In principle, a treaty is a legally binding “meeting of minds” between the parties. It is not the tacit intention in the minds of the parties to decide whether there was a “meeting.” The test is objective: how would a reasonable person interpret the interaction? The subjective approach to contract law refers to a legal theory that defines a contract as an agreement in which there is a subjective encounter of minds between the parties concerned. In this approach, the court will consider the subjective expectations and expectations of the parties and ignore the objective language of the treaty. However, some courts and commentators have rejected this theory and preferred the objective approach.
In this case (4), the professor wishes to affirm that, under the terms of his contract with Graduate, the diploma is obliged to accompany him on trips abroad, even if these trips force him to put their lives in danger and that she is also required to share a room with him if he does not have enough money for separate rooms. It is highly unlikely that the professor will be able to establish it as part of the objective test. On the one hand, it is unlikely that the professor seriously thought that Graduate would agree to do this kind of thing (putting her life in danger, sharing a room with the teacher) when she took her position with him.