AGREEMENT. A coming together of par ties in opinion or determination; the union of two or more minds in a thing done or to be done; a mutual assent to do a thing. Comyn, Dig. Agreement, A 1; Plowd. 5 a, 6 a.
Aggregatio mentium.—When two or more minds are united in a thing done or to be done.
It ought to be so certain and complete that either party may have an action on it, and there must be a quid pro quo; Dana, Abr. a. 11.
The consent of two or more persons con curring, the one in parting with, the other in receiving, some property, right, or bene fit; Bacon, Abr. An act in the law where by two or more persons declare their assent as to any act or thing to be done or forborne by some or one of those persons for the use of the others or other of them. Poll. Contr. 3, adopted in [1887] 36 Ch. D. 698. It must be concerned with duties or rights which can be dealt with in a court of justice; Poll. Contr. 3.
"The expression by two or more persons of a common intention to affect the legal relations of those persons." Anson, Contr. 3. An agreement "consists of two persons be ing of the same mind, intention, or mean ing concerning the matter agreed upon." Leake, Contr. 12.
"Agreement" is seldom applied to specialties; "contract" is generally confined to simple contracts; "promise" refers to the engagement of a party without reference to the reasons or considerations for it, or the duties of other parties; Pars. Contr. 6. An agreement ceases to be such by being put In writing under seal, but not when put in writing for a memorandum; Dane, Abr. c. 1.1.
It is a wider term than "contract ;" Anson, Contr. 4; an agreement might not be a con tract, because not fulfilling some requirement of the law of the place in which it is made.
The meaning of the contracting parties Is their agreement ; Whitney v. Wyman, 101 U. S. 396, 25 L. Ed. 1050.
An agreement of sale may Imply not mere ly an obligation to sell, but an obligation on the part of the other party to purchase, while an agreement to sell is simply an ob ligation on the part of the vendor or promis or to complete his promise of sale; Treat v. White, 181 U. S. 264, 21 Sup. Ct. 611, 45 L. Ed. 853.
In its correct sense, as used in the statute of frauds, it signifies a mutual contract up on a consideration, between two or more parties; 5 East 10 ; although frequently used in a loose, incorrect, sense as synonymous with promise or undertaking; id.; but, in its popular signification it means no more than concord, the union of two or more minds, concurrence of views and intention. Everything done or omitted by the compact of two or more minds is universally and familiarly called an agreement. Whether a consideration exists is a distinct idea which does not enter into the popular notion. In most instances any consideration except the voluntary impluse of minds cannot be ascrib ed to the numberless agreements that are made daily ; Marcy v. Marcy, 9 Allen (Mass.)
11; Sage v. Wilcox, 6 Conn. 85. Taken alone, it is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all forms of stipulationS, written or verbal ; Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S. 155, 14 Sup. Ct. 783, 38 L. Ed. 669.
The writing or instrument which is evi dence of an agreement.
The agreement may be valid, and yet the written evidence thereof insufficient; as, if a promissory note be given for twenty dollars, the amount of a previous debt, where the note may generally be neglected and the debt collected by means of other evidence ; or, again, If a note good in form be given for an illegal consideration, in which case the in strument is good and the agreement void.
See ACCORD AND SATISFACTION ; ACCEPT ANCE; CONSIDERATION; CONTRACT ; NOVATION; PERFORMANCE; RESCISSION; INTERPRETATION.
The parties must agree or assent. There must be a definite offer by one party accepted by the other ; Ives v. Hazard, 4 R. I. 14, 67 Am. Dec. 500 ; Emerson v. Graff, 29 Pa. 358. There must be a communication of assent by the party accepting ; a mere mental assent to the terms in his own mind is not enough ; L. R. 2 App. Ca. 691. See Allen v. Chouteau, 102 Mo. 309, 14 S. W. 869. But the assent need not be formally made ; it can be infer red from the party's acts; L. R. 6 Q. B. 607; L. R. 10 C. P. 307; Smith v. Ingram, 90 Ala. 529, 8 South. 144. They must assent to the same thing in the same sense; Eliason v. Renshaw, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 225, 4 L. pd. 556 ; Greene v. Bateman, 2 Woodb. & M. 359, Fed. Cas.. No. 5,762 ; 9 M. & W. 535; L. R. 6 Q. B. 597 ; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Levy's Adm'r, 122 Ky. 457, 92 S. W. 325, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 739. The assent must be mutual and obligatory ; there must be a request on one side, and an assent on the other ; 5 Bingh. N. C. 75 ; Abbott v. Hapgood, 150 Mass. 248, 22 N. E. 907, 5 L. It. A. 586, 15 Am. St. Rep. 193. Where there is a misunderstanding as to the date of performance there is no con tract, for want of mutual assent; Pittsburg & S. Coal Co. v. Slack & Co., 42 La. Ann. 107, 7 South. 230; or where there is a misunder standing as to the manner of payment ; Rob inson & Farrell v. Estes, 53 Mo. App. 582. The assent must comprehend the whole of the proposition ; it must be exactly equal to its extent and provision, and it must not qualify them by any new matter; 1 Pars. Contr. 400 ; and even a slight qualification destroys the assent; 5 M. & W. 535 ; Horn beck's Ex'r v. American Bible Society, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 133. The question of as sent when gathered from conversations is for the jury ; Thruston v. Thornton, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 89 ; De Ridder v. McKnight, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 294.