Final answer:
Courts follow the objective theory of contracts, focusing on how a reasonable person would understand the parties' outward expressions and actions when determining the offeror's intent in contract cases.
Step-by-step explanation:
In contract cases, courts generally adhere to the objective theory of contracts when deciding the issue of the offeror's intent. This legal doctrine indicates that the courts will look at what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have believed the intent of the contract to be, rather than attempting to deduce the subjective intentions of each party. It is grounded in the belief that contracts are agreements that create enforceable obligations, and these obligations are based on what has been outwardly expressed by the actions and statements of the parties involved, not their internal, private intentions.
Rhetorical strategies may be employed to argue for a particular interpretation of a contract's language, but ultimately it is the clear expressions and actions that manifest the parties' intents that will guide the court's interpretation. Since contractual rights are essentially based on property rights, they provide individuals with a mechanism to enter agreements regarding the use of their property with legal recourse available should disputes arise.