Courts utilize objective standards to assess offers and acceptances, focusing on what a reasonable person would think rather than the subjective intent of parties. This raises questions about the reasonableness of this approach and whether it would be more effective to consider individual intent in contract law. The document prompts a discussion on the implications of both practices.

1. Courts stick to objective (reasonable person) standards when evaluating offers and
acceptances. Juries are not asked to "get inside someone's head", they are instructed to
determine what a reasonable person would think of offerors' and offerees' statements. Is
this practice reasonable? Would it be better if the law directly considered whether people
wanted to make contracts (subjective intent of each individual)? Why or why not?