Contract: Acceptance

   In determining whether a contract exists, courts typically seek to establish whether there has been an agreement. In deciding this, the courts may look to see whether an offer has been made and acceptance has taken place. This is the typical make-up of a simplistic contract, however, this rule cannot be applied in all instances.

The 5 components of a contract

1. Agreement must be demonstrated, typically via offer and acceptance.
2. The agreement must be expressed in a format which is sufficiently clear, ie. it must not be vague, uncertain or incomplete.
3. There must be consideration. Consideration alludes to the fact that both the promisor and promisee must benefit and detriment within a contract. It is this detriment or benefit which is considered to constitute good consideration. However, consideration may not be a necessary component of a contract if an estoppel can be identified. Yet it is key to remember that the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the English legal system is not yet fully developed and can only be utilised as a 'shield and not a sword' as was demonstrated in Combe v Combe (1951).
4. The contract must exist in an accepted form, such as writing. The need for contracts to exist in particular formats has been diminished in modern times yet has not been wiped out altogether.
5. There must be an intent to create legal relations. This means that there must not be duress or other factors which could impinge upon a clear desire to establish a legal relationship. The law does not typically bestow social or domestic agreements with the intent to create legal relations, as typically it does not exist in such instances, yet in commercial contracts it is presumed to be present.

Why does our legal system adopt an objective approach as opposed to being subjective?

'Lord Clarke -> RTS Flexible Systems Ltd (2010)
It depends not upon their subjective state of mind, but upon a consideration of what was communicated between them by words or conduct. 

The English legal system adopts an objective outlook when deciding whether a legally binding contract exists. This means that subjective considerations, such as the state of mind of the parties are not typically taken into account. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, in transactions of a commercial nature there is the need for certainty when resolving contractual disputes. Although applying a subjective standard in such instances would lead to an individualised sense of justice, it would drag out cases significantly which would constitute an unprecedented drain on resources, not only temporally but in monetary terms.