Not all stories have such an end, but if you live in the tension of acceptance and agreement with someone, listen to me about it. If I had chosen to consider acceptance and consent as synonyms, I am not sure that my parents presented their lives to Christ. If I thought there would be no difference between accepting and reconciling with my parents, we would not have a relationship today. This type of acceptance will eventually create tensions. There will be tensions if they (or we) make life choices outside of God`s will. We feel this tension when someone we love is in a toxic friendship, has made unethical decisions at work, told us things that have turned out to be false, that treat anger in an unhealthy way or that generally live in sin. Supply and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach to contract law. The formula of offer and acceptance, developed in the 19th century, identifies a moment of education when the parties agree. This classic approach to contract formation has been modified by developments in the Estoppel Act, misleading behaviour, misrepresentation, unfair enrichment and the power of acceptance. For the assumption, the essential requirement is that, from a subjective point of view, the parties behave in a way that demonstrates their consent.
After this session of the theory of the spirit of the treaty, a party was able to resist a claim of violation by demonstrating that it did not intend to be bound by the agreement, only if it seemed subjective that it intended to do so. This is not satisfactory because one party does not have the opportunity to know the undisclosed intentions of another party. One party can only act on the basis of what the other party objectively reveals (Lucy V Zehmer, 196 Va 493 84 S.E. 2d 516) to be its intention. Therefore, a real meeting of minds is not necessary. In fact, it has been argued that the idea of “meeting minds” is a very modern mistake: the judges of the 19th century spoke of the “ad idem consensus” that modern teachers wrongly translated into “meeting spirits”, but which in fact means “agreement with the same cause”.  An invitation to treatment is not an offer, but an indication of a person`s willingness to negotiate a contract. It`s a pre-offer communication.
In the UK, Harvey v. Facey is an indication to the owner of the property that he or she might, for example, be interested in a sale at a specified price, was considered an invitation to treatment. Similarly, in the English case Gibson v. Manchester City Council, the words “may be ready to sell” were used as a price notice and, therefore, no separate offer, although in another case concerning the same policy change (Manchester City Council experienced a change of political control and ended the sale of council houses to their tenants) Storer v.