§ I. Agreement,

Nature of I. Agreement requires for its creation at least two parties.

There may be more than two, but inasmuch as agreement is

necessarily the outcome of consenting minds, the idea of

plurality is essential to it.

2. The parties must have a distinct intention, and that

intention must be common to both. Where there is doubt,

or difference, there cannot be agreement. Such communi-

cations as these will illustrate the proposition : —

Dovht. ' Will you buy my horse if I am inclined to

sell it r

* Very possibly.'

Difference. * Will you buy my horse for £50 1 '

' I will give you £20 for the horse.'

3. There must be a communication by the parties to one

another of their common intention. A secret acceptance of

a proposal cannot constitute an agreement. For instance,

A writes to X proposing to buy X's horse for £50* X makes

See dicta of UD his mind to accept but never tells A of his intention. He

I-ord Black- *^ *

Ap™; cl 6^/1. cannot complain if A buys a horse elsewhere.

4. The intention of the parties must refer to legal rela-

tions. The assumption of legal rights and duties must be

the object of agreement, as distinguished from a dinner en-

gagement or a promise to take a walk. For the purposes

^ In the case of Brogden v. MetropolUan Bailway Company in the

House of Lords. The case is not reported in the Courts below, but it

appears, from the report referred to, that Lord Coleridge, C. J., and

Brett, J., had, in giving judgment in the Common Pleas, used language

which might suggest that a mere mental consent uncommunicated to

the other party mi-^ht create a binding agreement. Lords Selbome

and Blackburn express their dissent, from such a proposition, the latter

very fiilly and decidedly.

Chap. I. §§ 1-3. PBOP08AL AND ACCEPTANCE. 15

acceptance, his answer is either a mere expression of willing-

ness to treat, or it is in effect a counter proposal.

A proposed to sell a property to X, JT accepted * subject Honeyman v.

^ Marryat,

to the terms of a contract bemg arranged ' between his solicitor * "• * c- "*

and A' 8. Here it was held that there was no agreement, for

the acceptance was not final, but subject to a discussion '

to take place between the agents of the parties.

A proposed to sell a farm to X for £1000, X said he would n^de r.

give £950. A refused this offer, and then X said that he 3 ^«*^- 33^

was willing to give J^iooo. A was no longer ready to and iden-

adhere to his original proposal and X endeavoured to obtain ^^ tmns

specific performance of the contract. But it was held that °^ ^^^ P^o-

bis offer to buy at X950 in answer to A's offer to sell for ^1000

was a refusal of the offer of A and a counter-proposal, and And see

HussevT.

that he could not after this hold ^ to his original offer. L.°]£*8^rD

67a