ABSTRACT
The so-called objective theory of contract is a foundational pillar of contract law. But the theory is incompletely specified and insufficiently grounded. The thesis of this article is that contract law does not use only one objective theory of contractual intent. Rather, contract law uses four objective theories, each representing distinct (though often overlapping) ways of determining contractual intent. The four objective theories of contractual intent are: objective as evidentiary; objective as manifested; objective as written; and objective as average.
The objective as manifested conception, which is the traditional understanding, determines contractual intent by focusing on words or conduct manifested by the promisor to the promisee, as reasonably understood by the promisee. This conception predominates in formation doctrines such as offer and acceptance, and in certain interpretation doctrines, in particular course of performance and course of dealing. The objective as evidentiary conception determines contractual intent by examining all evidence of contractual intent other than the testimony of the parties. This conception predominates in contract defenses such as unilateral mistake, duress, misrepresentation, and procedural unconscionability. The objective as written conception views writings as the best objective evidence of contractual intent. This conception predominates in the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and the plain meaning rule of interpretation. Finally, the average conception of objectivity determines contractual intent by identifying and applying some external standard of conduct. This conception predominates in doctrines such as limitations on damages, changed circumstances, implied warranties, trade usage, public policy limitations, and standardized terms.
The article then identifies the distinct type of fault underlying each of the objective theories and explains how these theories represent different ways that contract law incorporates fault judgments. The manifestation conception of objectivity takes a particular and comparative approach to fault, focusing on conduct by a promisor that misleads a promisee about the promisor’s contractual intent and the promisee’s response to those manifestations. The objective as evidentiary conception takes a unilateral approach to fault by focusing on objective proof of opportunistic advantage-taking by promisees other than in response to a promisor’s manifestation. This conception also allows promisors to prove the absence of fault. The objective as written conception adopts a narrow role for fault, limited to duties to write and read. This conception presumes that the party who fails to protect its interests by stating them in a writing or by reading the other party’s writing is more at fault. Finally, the objective as average conception sees the average as a default standard, and focuses on the fault of the party who opportunistically asserts idiosyncracy after the fact, or who fails to learn of or contract out of the average.
Cohen, George M, The Objective Theories of Contract and the Role of Fault (March 16, 2026), Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No 2026-23; Virginia Law and Economics Research Paper No 2026-07.
Leave a Reply