Opinion ID: 2330991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Meeting of the Minds

Text: For their second point, the Wards argue that the Court of Appeals' statement in Ward I that the phrase meeting of the minds had fallen out of favor was error due to the fact that this court recently used the term in Williamson v. Sanofi Winthrop Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 347 Ark. 89, 60 S.W.3d 428 (2001). Thus, the Wards maintain, Ward I conflicts with our Williamson decision. Williams responds that the Wards' argument is the classic `distinction without a difference.' He contends that there is no meaningful difference between [a] meeting of the minds as to all terms, using objective indicators, which was the test cited in our Williamson decision and objective manifestations of mutual assent, which was the test used by the Court of Appeals in Ward I. As already stated in this opinion, this court, following the grant of a petition for review, reviews what occurred in the circuit court for error and not the opinion of the Court of Appeals. See BPS, Inc. v. Parker, supra . Bearing this standard in mind, we turn to the appropriate test for determining agreement to a contract by the parties. In Williamson, we said it is well settled that in order to make a contract there must be a meeting of the minds on all terms, using objective indicators.  Williamson, 347 Ark. at 98, 60 S.W.3d at 434 (emphasis added). It is clear that this court employs an objective test for determining mutual assent. Indeed, this court made it clear more than a decade ago that though the phrase meeting of the minds may have been used in our decisions, we meant objective indicators of agreement and not subjective opinions. See Crain Indus., Inc. v. Cass, 305 Ark. 566, 810 S.W.2d 910 (1991). It is manifest from the circuit court's judgment that that court found objective indicators of the parties' assent to contract by virtue of the performance of its terms. There was no error in this regard.