Meeting of the Minds Cases In Arkansas

The phrase "meeting of the minds," is no longer in favor when considering whether the parties reached an agreement necessary to constitute a binding contract. In recent years, our decisions have focused on whether there are "objective manifestations of mutual assent for the formation of a contract." Shea v. Riley, 59 Ark. App. 203, 206, 954 S.W.2d 951, 953 (1997) (quoting Thurman v. Thurman, 50 Ark. App. 93, 97, 900 S.W.2d 221, 223 (1995)). The question of whether a contract has been made must be determined from a consideration of the parties' expressed or manifested intention that is, from a consideration of their words and acts. Hagans v. Haines, 64 Ark. App. 158, 984 S.W.2d 41 (1998). Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels the performance of a contract on the precise terms agreed upon by the parties. Dossey v. Hanover, Inc., 48 Ark. App. 108, 891 S.W.2d 67 (1995).