Conduct invalidating assent
Try it risk-free Mutual assent is considered the meeting of the minds between two or more parties that forms the foundation of a contract.
At the time of mutual assent, it can be said that a legally binding contract exists.
L-36142 March 31, 1973 JOSUE JAVELLANA, petitioner, vs.
"WHEREAS, fourteen million nine hundred seventy-six thousand five hundred sixty-one (14,976,561) members of all the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies) voted for the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as against seven hundred forty-three thousand eight hundred sixty-nine (743,869) who voted for its rejection; while on the question as to whether or not the people would still like a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution, fourteen million two hundred ninety-eight thousand eight hundred fourteen (14,298,814) answered that there was no need for a plebiscite and that the vote of the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies) should be considered as a vote in a plebiscite; "WHEREAS, since the referendum results show that more than ninety-five (95) per cent of the members of the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies) are in favor of the new Constitution, the Katipunan ng Mga Barangay has strongly recommended that the new Constitution should already be deemed ratified by the Filipino people; "NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E.
To exemplify this, Rodney was in the market for a new kayak.
In other words, it was a one-sided joke on the part of Zehmer.
There is also a mutual understanding of what each party promises and that the promise can be carried out as agreed.
The court will look at two things, offer and acceptance, when making a decision on whether both parties actually reached mutual assent. The objective theory of contract states that an agreement between two parties exists if a reasonable person could judge the acts and behaviors of the parties enough to objectively construe agreement.
of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress ...," and "there is no proper submission to the people of said Proposed Constitution set for January 15, 1973, there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof." Substantially identical actions were filed, on December 8, 1972, by Pablo C.
L- 35929) on December 11, 1972, by Gerardo Roxas, et al., against the Commission on Elections, the Director of Printing, the National Treasurer and the Auditor General (Case G.