Phillips v. Mazyck

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that courts are to determine mutual assent from the parties’ words or acts
• explaining that “mutuality of assent - the meeting of the minds of the parties - is an essential element of all contracts,” that “[u]ntil the parties have a distinct intention common to both and without doubt or difference, there is a lack of mutual assent and, therefore, no contract”
• finding a lack of mutuality and noting that “Marcari’s retention of both the original and the revised agreement, even though he signed each document, [was] not inconsequential in light of the specific instructions . . . directing him to sign the document and send it to” another party
• “It is elementary that mutuality of assent ... is an essential element of all contracts.”
• “It is elementary that mutuality of assent—the meeting of the minds of the parties—is an essential element of all contracts.”
• “Until the parties have a distinct intention common to both and without doubt or difference, there is a lack of mutual assent and, therefore, no contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).