Hotchkiss v. National City Bank of New York
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: per WP:MOS (August 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Hotchkiss v. National City Bank of N.Y., 200 F. 287, 293 (S.D.N.Y. 1911) was a landmark case in contract law articulating the Objective Theory of Contracts and dealing with the meaning of a promise in a contract. To wit, Judge Learned Hand opined: "A contract has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the personal, or individual, intent of the parties. A contract is an obligation attached by the mere force of law to certain acts of the parties, usually words, which ordinarily accompany and represent a known intent. If, however, it were proved by twenty bishops that either party when he used the words intended something else than the usual meaning which the law imposes on them, he would still be held, unless there were mutual mistake or something else of the sort."
|This article relating to case law in the United States, or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|