In contract law, the use of moral phraseology has led to the same confusion, as I have already shown in part, but only partially. Morality is the true inner state of the individual, which he intends to do. From the time of the Romans until today, this type of action has influenced the language of the law, which is contractually bound, and the language used has responded to the idea. We are talking about a treaty as a meeting of the minds of the parties, and from there, in different cases, it is concluded that there is no contract because their thoughts have not been fulfilled; That is, because they had other intentions or because some party was not aware of the agreement of the others. But nothing is more certain that the parties can be bound by a contract to things that neither of them intended to do, and if one ignores the agreement of the other. Suppose a contract is executed in the form and in writing to give a lecture without mentioning the time. One of the parties believes that the promise is interpreted to mean in one week at a time. The other one thinks it means he`s ready. The court says that means within a reasonable time. The parties are bound by the contract as interpreted by the court, but none of them meant what the court explains they said. In my view, no one will understand the true theory of the Treaty or even be able to discuss intelligently certain fundamental issues until he understands that all contracts are formal, that contracting does not depend on the agreement of two minds with one intention, but on the agreement of two sentences of external signs – not on the fact that the parties heard the same thing. is that they said the same thing.
 Meeting spirits is part of the element of acceptance. Acceptance is generally recognized and referred to by a signature. As a result, contracts generally need to be signed in detail and in writing. A contract may stipulate that a defendant must pay a plaintiff for the use of a product or service for a specified amount. There could even be a hell or flood clause to enforce the complainant`s right to pay.