Misunderstanding in Restatement of Ks
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:04 pm
I believe section 20 of the Second Restatement of Contracts is ambiguous or contradictory, but maybe someone can explain it to me.
I wrote up a nice truth table for but couldn't resolve properly the case of A(knows) & notA(has reason) & notB(knows) & B(has reason). Put into human English, this is the case if A knows the other's intention, but doesn't have reason to know it, while B doesn't know the other's intention, but does have reason to know it. My reading of the wording would indicate that there is a manifestation of mutual assent, that one party's view will control, and that both have an equal claim of this control.§20. EFFECT OF MISUNDERSTANDING
(1) There is no manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange if the parties attach materially different meanings to their manifestations and
(a) neither party knows or has reason to know the meaning attached by the other; or
(b) each party knows or each party has reason to know the meaning attached by the other.
(2) The manifestations of the parties are operative in accordance with the meaning attached to them by one of the parties if
(a) that party does not know of any different meaning attached by the other, and the other knows the meaning attached by the first party; or
(b) that party has no reason to know of any different meaning attached by the other, and the other has reason to know the meaning attached by the first party.
