“Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that the agreement is inconclusive if both parties to an agreement have an error regarding a fact essential to the agreement. The section`s explanation indicates that an erroneous opinion of the value of the purpose of the agreement should not be considered a factual error. If the parties make a mutual mistake, misunderstand each other and trust each other, there is no real correspondence of offer and acceptance and the parties are not really consensual. So there is absolutely no agreement; and the contract is also in null and void. A common mistake is that both parties are wrong about the same essential fact, although both parties are ad ditto, . B the purpose of the contract has already disappeared. A meeting of minds or an agreement is a necessary element for a contract to be applicable. Therefore, all the terms of the offer must be accepted or there is no ad idem consensus and therefore there is no contract for this reason. If there is clear uncertainty in the terms of the contract, it is not possible to reach an objective agreement. Sometimes a contract seems valid, but it is actually the result of an error made by one party or even both parties. Errors may be due to the terms of the contract or the nature of the purpose of the contract.

[3] In this context, the intercity and security of the treaty are understood as the security and enforcement of asset transfer agreements between persons and capital companies. This security and application is a fundamental principle in today`s economies and societies. A fundamental error in the way treaties are legally constructed is that it is never entirely possible to prove with absolute certainty that those involved had a genuine meeting of minds. A systematic approach is usually the best way to deal with it, to determine each party`s intentions in relation to the terms of the contract in the event of disagreement. The filter used is how the terms and intentions were expressed in actions and words, how a reasonable person would understand them. The meeting of spirits is therefore very necessary. It does not completely eliminate the possibility of differences of opinion, but simply means that all dissenting opinions must be clearly debated and considered so as not to neglect the interests of all contracting parties. It focuses on eliminating any confusion that may lead to conflict in the future. That is why it is essential to reach a mutual agreement in order to avoid any contradictory situation that might result from a misunderstanding in the wording of the treaty. When an objective approach is applied, the Tribunal endeavours to determine the obvious existence of evidence that constitutes consensus, not a true meeting of minds, which would be characterized as a true consensus ad idem. The development of the objective approach can be considered incisive.

In Smith/Hughes [13], the subjective approach to the agreement was applied to the facts, although estoppel was considered a corrective measure to prevent the party who had behaved in a manner contrary to his actual ideas from not refusing the contract. In this case, the oat buyer had believed that he was buying old oats, but he acted in a way that should reasonably be understood as the one that had agreed to buy oats, which he did buy.