The subjective theory of contracting has been lost to us with honor culture and the buggywhip. Only a formalist simulacrum remains.

General background here. https://twitter.com/PereGrimmer/status/1128384623065669632?s=20

The objective theory of contract is that words of promise objectively create a contract, rather like a formal seal but with contents less circumscribed. The subjective theory is that only promises subjectively intended to create

a binding obligation, and understood as such, create a legal contract enforceable at law. I'm quite sure that this feeling is the historic root of contracting: honor bound obligations between people, and it would cheapen things to bring a court into it as you

have an ongoing commercial relationship.

From the court perspective, there is no practical difference between the objective and subjective theories of contract, because, whatever the theory, it must be cashed out in objective evidence.

But...

... from a personal or individual perspective, the widespread adoption of the objective theory seems to give license to trickery and chicanery, "oh but we had a contract!", and the court system will naturally be attuned to repeat players screwing people in one off situations.

After many decades of this, the culture of honor and communities that gave rise to the initial impulse to contract are all but lost. Thus a formalism can be fully correct as far as its scope, but hollow out its substratum.

More general point, the law has a precise, formal component, that might be represented by the consensus of expert opinion on what will happen in some challenge situation. But law and social norms are reflexive, so you seemingly can't rectify law without over- or undershooting.