28-2-301. Essential characteristics of consent. The consent of the parties to a contract must be:
(1) free;
(2) mutual; and
(3) communicated by each to the other.
Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-301
Essential Characteristics Of Consent
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 2. CONTRACTS
Part 3. Consent in General
Essential Characteristics Of Consent
History: En. Sec. 2110, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 4971, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7473, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 1565; Field Civ. C. Sec. 750; re-en. Sec. 7473, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 13-301.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Chipman v. Northwest Healthcare Corp.
Chipman v. Northwest Healthcare Corp. (2014)
“Thus, our analysis of whether the manual is a contract is governed by general principles of Montana contract law. ¶15 Plaintiffs must establish four elements to prove the existence of a contract: “(1) identifiable parties capable of contracting; (2) their consent; (3) a lawful…”
Keil v. Glacier Park, Inc. (1980)
“Section 28-2-301, MCA. Consent is not free when obtained through duress or undue influence.”
Kienas v. Peterson (1980)
“” Section 28-2-301, MCA: “The consent of the parties to a contract must be: “(1) free; “(2) mutual; and “(3) communicated by each to the other.”
Wolfe v. Webb (1992)
“Section 28-2-301, MCA, requires that consent must be freely given; and § 28-2-401, MCA, provides that consent cannot be freely given when it is based upon mistake.”
Sawyer-Adecor International, Inc. v. Anglin (1982)
“Indubitably, the parties exhibited some degree of mutual consent when they executed (Sawyer with the approval of its board of directors) the March 8,1976 letter of intent. Without setting it forth in haec verba, the March 8,1976 letter of intent provided that Sawyer would…”
Olsen v. Johnston (2013)
“¶11 To form a legally enforceable contract, there must be (1) identifiable parties capable of contracting; (2) their consent; (3) a lawful object; and (4) a sufficient cause or consideration.”
Interstate Production Credit Ass'n v. Abbott (1986)
“Section 28-2-301, MCA. The element of mutual consent is clearly lacking in the alleged agreement between defendants and PCA.”
Matthews v. Berryman (1981)
“Consent must be free, section 28-2-301, MCA, and apparent consent is not free when obtained through duress, fraud, or undue influence.”
Pfau v. Mortenson (2012)
“” Mont.Code Ann. § 28-2-301; Abbott, 726 P.”
Gamble v. Sears (2007)
“2d at 246 (citing § 28-2-301(1) and § 28-2-401(1)(e), MCA).”
Patterson v. Verizon Wireless (2005)
“Section 28-2-301, MCA (1999). However, consent is not mutual “unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense .”
Needham v. Kluver (2019)
“" Section 28-2-301, MCA. Sufficient consideration is exchanged where "[a]ny benefit conferred or agreed to be conferred upon the promisor by any other person, to which the promisor is not lawfully entitled, or [where] any prejudice suffered or agreed to be suffered by the…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-301(1) — 1 case
Gamble v. Sears (2007)
“2d at 246 (citing § 28-2-301(1) and § 28-2-401(1)(e), MCA).”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-301(3) — 1 case
Chipman v. Northwest Healthcare Corp. (2014)
“Thus, our analysis of whether the manual is a contract is governed by general principles of Montana contract law. ¶15 Plaintiffs must establish four elements to prove the existence of a contract: “(1) identifiable parties capable of contracting; (2) their consent; (3) a lawful…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.