The objective theory of contract states that an agreement between parties

The objective theory of contract states that an agreement between parties

The objective theory of contract states that an agreement between parties is said to be legally binding if a reasonable person who is not part of the contract opines that an offer has been made and accepted.

The Issue

The issue is whether there was a legal sale of the safe and the unknown contents therein to the Mitchells by the auctioneer, and therefore, who is the legal owner of the money found in the safe.

The Decision

Sumstad had entrusted the safe and all its contents as they were to the auctioneer. An entrustment occurred under RCW 62A.2 – 403 (2). Therefore, the issue is whether there was actually a legal sale of the safe and the unknown contents therein to the Mitchells by the auctioneer.

For sale to take place, there must be a consensus. In light of the circumstances surrounding the terms of the agreement between parties involved in a transaction, the intentions of the parties determine which subject matter passes, and the terms of agreement reveal this. Miner’s Aircraft & Engine Serv. Corporation 66 Wn. 2d 513, 518, 403 P. 2d 833 (1965) v. West Coast Airlines Corporation. The objective theory of contracts followed in this situation (Pitts, 67 Wn.2d 514,408 P. 2d 382 (1965) v. Plumbing Shop Company) stresses assent outward manifestation made by the parties to each other. Therefore, the parties’ subjective intentions are irrelevant.

I think Al and Rosemary Mitchell, Sumstad Estate, and the auctioneer knew the auction rules that it was final once a sale was made. Moreover, the auctioneer did not make any statement that reserved the rights to any possible content of the safe that belonged to Sumstad Estate. Indubitably from obvious reasoning, there was a clear manifestation of the auctioneer’s objective intention to sell the safe and anything that could have been contained in it. Accordingly, the transaction herein involved the full package of the safe in its condition at Alexander’s Auction, whether this condition was knowingly or unknowingly desirable to the buyer or not; and to the seller alike. In what a reasonable person will conclude, both parties had a mutual assent to enter into the sale of the safe and the contents locked in its compartment.

The Mitchells faced a possibility of having wasted their $50 if the safe in which the auctioneer did not have the key and the combinations did not serve the purpose for which they purchased it. In other words, whether their experience with the safe would be desirable or not, they had entered into a contract, and the $50 was their payment for whatever amount and kind of utility the safe would provide. The sale implied that this utility had been transferred in its intact state from Sumstad Estate to the Mitchells through the auctioneer.

Having considered all these factors and dimensions, the court has enough reasons to rule that the $32,207 in cash found in the compartment of the safe should and belongs to the Mitchells. They are the rightful and legal owners of the safe when the cash is found, and therefore they legally own the cash.