Key Takeaways

  • Subjective intent focuses on a party’s internal state of mind, motivations, or beliefs rather than their outward expressions or written words.
  • Courts generally prioritize objective intent—what a reasonable person would infer from actions or words—especially in contract law, but subjective intent becomes relevant in certain disputes.
  • Ambiguous contract language, pre-contract negotiations, and evidence of actual belief or misunderstanding can bring subjective intent into play.
  • Understanding subjective intent is crucial not only in contract interpretation but also in fraud claims, misrepresentation cases, and statutory liability, where a party’s knowledge and beliefs may determine liability.
  • Evidence such as emails, negotiations, or witness testimony can help establish subjective intent when it becomes legally significant.

Subjective intent refers to a person's state of mind instead of expressed intentions.

What is Subjective Intent?

When people experience scrutiny, they also deal with subjective intent. For instance, someone sells you jewelry and tells you that it's made of gold and you believe that person. You pay money for the jewelry believing it is made of gold, but it turns out the jewelry is not. The seller must return the money and take the jewelry back.

The difference between subjective intent and fraud is that with subjective intent, no one is trying to deceive anyone. Subjective intent deals with the state of a person's mind instead of objective manifestations, which deal with intentions.

Legal Significance of Subjective Intent

Subjective intent plays a critical role in legal contexts beyond mere contract interpretation. It reflects what a party actually believed, intended, or understood at the time an agreement was made or an action was taken. This focus on internal mindset is particularly important in cases involving misrepresentation, fraud, or statutory violations, where liability often hinges on whether the party acted knowingly or with deliberate disregard for the truth.

For example, under the False Claims Act (FCA), liability depends significantly on subjective intent. A contractor who submits a claim while genuinely believing it to be accurate may avoid liability, even if the claim is later shown to be false. Conversely, a party that suspects falsity but submits a claim anyway can be found liable due to reckless disregard for the truth.

In civil disputes, subjective intent may also arise in cases of duress, undue influence, or mistake, where courts look beyond the written terms of an agreement to examine the parties’ true mental states at the time of contract formation.

Subjective Intention of the Parties

When courts interpret contracts, a two-step process is usually involved.

  • What are the contract's terms?
  • What do the terms mean objectively?

These questions explain the parties' intentions as shown in the contract. Interpreting a contract has nothing to do with subjective intention or the parties' mental state.

Evidence Used to Establish Subjective Intent

Because subjective intent involves a party’s inner beliefs, proving it can be challenging. Courts typically rely on indirect evidence and contextual clues to infer a party’s state of mind. Common types of evidence include:

  • Pre-contract communications: Emails, letters, or meeting notes that show what each party believed or intended during negotiations.
  • Testimony: Statements from parties or witnesses regarding their understanding of terms or obligations.
  • Behavior and conduct: Actions that reveal a party’s intentions, such as how they performed under the agreement or responded to changes.
  • Industry standards: Evidence showing what parties in similar situations generally intend, which may help interpret ambiguous terms.

While such evidence can shed light on subjective intent, courts weigh it cautiously. They aim to balance the need to understand a party’s mindset with the principle that contracts should primarily reflect their objective terms.

What Happens When the Language is Unclear?

Objective intention occurs only if the words used in the contract are known by both parties. But what happens if the contract's language is unclear? Then the court must figure out the meaning by looking at certain circumstances. If this occurs, subjective intention remains irrelevant.

The courts also cannot examine the negotiations made before the contract was approved. It cannot draw conclusions about what the contract meant unless there's knowledge about surrounding circumstances.

Most times subjective intent isn't considered, so make sure the contract is carefully worded. If there's ambiguity, clarify the words found in the contract and make known the intended meaning in writing to the other party.

Subjective Intent and Ambiguity Resolution

When contract language is ambiguous, courts may consider subjective intent as a secondary interpretive tool. Although the primary focus remains on the text and its objective meaning, understanding what the parties actually intended can prevent an unjust result. For instance, if both parties clearly shared a common understanding during negotiations that differs from the literal reading of the contract, courts might interpret the agreement to align with that shared understanding.

This approach is especially relevant in cases where one party’s subjective belief was known to the other and reasonably relied upon. In such situations, courts may use that belief to clarify ambiguous language and enforce the contract according to the parties’ true intentions.

Subjective and Objective Intent in Contract Law

Contract law looks at objective intent instead of subjective intent when looking into contract formation. Legally, the intent is considered a state of mind when someone performs an act or behaves in a specific manner. It is the basis for the activities the person intends to make.

A contract is legally binding if the intention is understood by both parties. The intention must be specified clearly so that both parties understand the words and actions found in the contract. However, there might be miscommunication that occurs due to deliberate actions, wrong choice of words, or misunderstanding. As a result, it might be difficult to enforce the contract or challenge its validity as the basis for forming a contract involves intention.

If the dispute ends up going to court, the court examines the intention to create the legal obligation. Not all agreements are enforceable under the law, especially if one party believes there was an agreement set in place but nothing that states a legal intention. To determine if the intention is legally bound or not, the court uses the objective test of contractual intent.

The court also disregards the party's state of mind was, which is the subjective intent and focuses more on what someone else would think in the same situation. This is the objective intent. The court analyzes the circumstances and determines if the intention. If the contractual tests required aren't met or satisfied, the court assumes the party didn't plan or intend to agree to the legally binding contract.

It is difficult to determine what a party was thinking subjectively without looking into the objective aspect. The subjective approach means you might look at data, which might not be accurate. If you have valid and trustworthy evidence available, this can enhance your case.

For example, two people agree that they would follow a specific goal. They don't sign a contract because they don't want to deal with the hassle, so they shake hands. Objectively, there is no contract, even though they sought to establish a legally binding contract. However, there is a subjective intent to agree.

In another example, a drunken man agrees to do some work around the house for someone in return for consideration. However, the other party doesn't know the man is drunk and believes the contract is legally binding. The drunken man only agreed to do the work because he wasn't sober and in the right frame of mind to make this decision. Applying only objective intent isn't good enough in this situation, so you must take subjective intent into account.

Practical Implications and Legal Strategy

While subjective intent is often secondary to objective evidence, understanding its role is vital in litigation and contract drafting. Parties should:

  • Document negotiations thoroughly to create a clear record of their intentions.
  • Clarify ambiguous language before signing, reducing the risk of disputes based on subjective interpretations.
  • Avoid reckless conduct that could demonstrate awareness of potential wrongdoing, especially in regulatory or fraud contexts.
  • Gather evidence that supports their understanding of terms if litigation arises.

In some cases, subjective intent can become a powerful defensive tool. For example, a party accused of breach or fraud may argue they lacked the necessary intent to deceive or misrepresent, which can limit or eliminate liability.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is subjective intent in contract law?
    Subjective intent refers to a party’s internal understanding, belief, or motivation behind their actions or agreement, as opposed to the outward expressions considered in objective intent.
  2. When does subjective intent matter in court?
    It matters most when contract terms are ambiguous, when there’s evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, or when liability hinges on knowledge or belief, such as under the False Claims Act.
  3. How do courts determine subjective intent?
    Courts examine indirect evidence like negotiations, written communications, behavior, and testimony to infer what a party actually intended or believed.
  4. Can subjective intent override the written contract?
    Generally, no. Courts prioritize the objective meaning of the contract. However, subjective intent may influence interpretation if ambiguity exists or both parties shared a different mutual understanding.
  5. How can parties protect themselves from disputes over subjective intent?
    They should clearly define terms in writing, document negotiations, communicate intentions openly, and seek legal review before finalizing agreements.

If you need help with subjective intent, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.