A meeting of the minds – one of the essential requisites for a valid contract

When two parties to an agreement (contract) both have the same understanding of the terms of the agreement. Such mutual comprehension is essential to a valid contract. It is provable by the express provisions of a written contract, without reference to any statements or hidden thoughts outside the writing. There would not be a meeting of the minds if Bill Buyer said, "I'll buy all your stock," and he meant shares in a corporation, and Sam Seller said, "I'll sell all my stock to you," and meant his cattle.

It is only when all parties involved are aware of the formation of a legal obligation is there a meeting of the minds.

But this is one of the most misunderstood phrases by even eminent lawyers and judges.
Some right and some wrong use of the phrase

Right:

1. The theory of ‘consensus ad idem’ applied by the Courts led to the proposition that an ‘implied agreement’ between the parties was, to have ‘agreed in facts’. ‘Reasonable implication’ was not presumed, but ‘necessary implication’ was called for. – HLL v Commissioner - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 806 (Tri. - Bang.)

2. In the BSNL case we reported this week, 2006-TIOL-15-SC-CT-LB, it was observed that”To constitute a transaction for the transfer of the right to use the goods the transaction must have the following attributes:

a. There must be goods available for delivery;

b. There must be a consensus ad idem as to the identity of the goods;

Wrong

In this regard, I may mention that it was the consensus-ad-idem of all the High Courts in our country that in the context of stringent punishments provided under the N.D.P.S. Act for the various offences, the mandatory provisions were built in for the purpose of providing a total check over the unfettered powers vested with the officers from implicating false persons ruthlessly. – Madras High Court in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 281 (Mad.)

But strangely a corrupt version of this phrase is popularly used. You can find the phrase ad idem in many judgements. There is no such phrase. “Ad idem" is a frequent misspelling of the Latin words ad diem meaning "on a particular day" and, if used as an adjective, could mean "up to date." The reason that lawyers miss this phrase, or misemploy it, is not just because their spell check does not work but because idem is a legitimate adverb in Latin. If the words AD IDEM are actually spelled that way, and are not in fact a misspelling, then it means "to the same"

The law, as manipulated by clever and highly respected rascals, still remains the best avenue for honourable and leisurely plunder.

(Gabriel Chevallier (1895-1969)