Henry gave a talk before the training, promised "I'll see that you get ...$5000 for bronze". Then the team trained, went to Athens and won a bronze medal in the Olympics Handball competition. A contract was clearly formed. The consideration from the side of the Olympics Handball team was the effort they put into the training and the bronze medal they got at the Olympics. Henry is bound by law to get the players $5000 each for the bronze medal they got.
The relevant law is:
Formation of a contract requires a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and a consideration.
In case of Henry there is no doubt that the bargain took place and the assent took place because the team started training for the Olympics.
Please know the essentials
· There must be an express or implied agreement. In case of Australian Handball Team Vs Henry the announcement and the starting of the training constituted an agreement. In modern practice, whether there has been an agreement is determined objectively, not subjectively. Thus, it is no defense to an action based on a contract for the defendant to claim that he never intended to be bound by the agreement if under all the circumstances it is shown at trial that his conduct was such that it communicated to the other party or parties that the defendant had in fact agreed. Signing of a contract is one way a party may show his assent. In case of Australian Handball Team Vs Henry, Henry cannot claim that he never intended to be bound by the agreement. Alternatively, an offer consisting of a promise to pay someone if the latter performs certain acts which the latter would not otherwise do (such as paint a house) may be accepted by the requested conduct instead of a promise to do the act. The performance of the requested act indicates objectively the party's assent to the terms of the offer. In case of Australian Handball Team Vs Henry the starting of the training and the participation indicates the assent to the terms of Henry's offer.
The essential requirement is that there be evidence that the parties had each from an objective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent. This manifestation of assent theory of contract formation may be contrasted with older theories, in which it was sometimes argued that a contract required the parties to have a true meeting of the minds between the parties. Under the "meeting of the minds" theory of contract, a party could resist a claim of breach by proving that although it may have appeared objectively that he intended to be bound by the agreement, he had never truly intended to be bound. This is unsatisfactory, as the other parties have no means of knowing their counterparts' undisclosed intentions or understandings. They can only act upon what a party reveals objectively to be his intent. Hence, an actual meeting of the minds is not required. In case of Australian Handball Team Vs Henry the meeting of the minds plea is not available to Henry.
A contract will be formed [assuming the other requirements are met] when the parties give objective manifestation of an intent to form the contract. Of course, the assent must be given to terms of the agreement. Usually this involves the making by one party of an offer to be bound upon certain terms, ...
This job highlights the law of contracts.