In Abel v. Burke, Hall J.A. stated in his concurring reasons at p. 305: Here the trial judge found no consensus ad idem. Thus there was a defect going to the root of the agreement in a type of contract where a solicitor must ensure that there is not a misapprehension by the client of essential terms. […] the proper result in law is that this agreement between the solicitor and client must be found fatally defective on account of failure of the parties to agree on an important term. The broad principles that are specifically applicable to this rather unique class of contract considerably modifies the objective theory of contract in a case like the instant case […]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.