Opinion ID: 1801184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: mutuality of assent

Text: The elevator argues that there could not be a contract between it and Pride because there was no meeting of the minds. This is, in fact, an attack on the trial court's findings that the elevator's agent had authority to contract and did contract for the purchase of pyrenone. As this Court explained in Amann v. Frederick, 257 N.W.2d 436, 439 (N.D.1977): The invocation of the shorthand expression `meeting of the minds' is more misleading than helpful in deciding contract issues. We added in that case: `Assent, in the sense of the law, is a matter of overt acts, not of inward unanimity in motives, design, or the interpretation of words.' Although the testimony was disputed, there was substantial evidence which, if believed by the trier of facts, supports the findings of fact that Ordahl acted with full authority in behalf of the elevator when he placed the order for the pyrenone, when he confirmed the order the following day, when he accepted delivery without protest when it arrived, and when he placed it in the elevator's warehouse. We do not re-try fact questions under such circumstances. Rule 52(a), NDRCivP. The findings of fact support the conclusion that a contract was indeed formed by acts which constitute a mutual assent thereto. No specific writing is required.