Kabil
Developments v. Mignot
Supreme
Court of
279
Or. 151, 566 P.2d 505.
Facts: The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants orally agreed to supply the plaintiffs with helicopter services. The defendants denied there was a contract. At trial, testimony was admitted that the plaintiffs
subjectively thought they had a deal with the defendants. The plaintiffs won. The defendants appealed on the basis that the
subjective testimony of the plaintiffs shouldn’t have been admitted.
Issue: Was the jury allowed to
erroneously find a contract on the basis of a subjective standard instead of an
objective standard?
Rule: When a court determines
whether a party has assented to an agreement, the only intention that matters
is the party’s apparent, objective intention (or the intention that a “reasonable
person” would infer).
Analysis: The subjectivists and
objectivists fought it out over many, many years, but the objectivists pretty
much won out. The jury is only to
consider whether a reasonable person would have inferred a promise on the part
of the defendants. However, the court
finds that subjective evidence is relevant, though not completely
determinative. The court also finds that
the jury was not instructed incorrectly.
Conclusion: The judgment for the plaintiffs
was affirmed.