Intent: Legal Definition Under Crime, Tort and Contract Law

What is Intent?

Intent refers to a person’s state of mind in wanting, deciding, or desiring to commit a particular act. Intent is the deliberate aim or purpose behind an individual’s actions, crucial in determining the legal implications and outcomes in various contexts.


The legal world revolves around various concepts, many of which are crucial for determining the outcome of cases and guiding the interpretation of statutes and contracts.

In its simplest form, it refers to a person’s conscious aim or plan to accomplish a particular result or to engage in a particular course of conduct. It is not just about doing something, but why and with what purpose someone does it.

Intent in Criminal Law

In criminal law, the mental state of a defendant at the time they commit a crime can significantly influence the outcome of a case. For instance:

  • Specific vs. General Intent: Some crimes require ‘specific intent,’ meaning the defendant intended a particular result (e.g., to kill in the case of first-degree murder). Others require only ‘general intent,’ where it is enough to show the defendant intended to perform the act, regardless of wanting a particular outcome.

When looking at the severities of different crimes, such as the distinction between first-degree murder and manslaughter, the individual’s design behind their actions becomes paramount.

Did the individual premeditate and deliberate the act? Or did they act in the heat of passion without premeditation? Such distinctions can greatly affect the penalties involved and hinge largely on the individual’s purpose behind their actions.

Intent - intent in criminal law - intent in tort - intent in contract law

Tort Law

In civil cases, particularly torts, it also plays a pivotal role. Here, it is about determining if an act was intentional, negligent, or merely accidental.

  • Negligence: Lacks the purposefulness of intentional torts. Here, the focus shifts from what one intended to what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation.

For instance, if someone purposefully breaks another’s arm, that’s an intentional tort. But if they accidentally hit someone with a car because they weren’t paying attention, that’s negligence. The person’s aim, or lack thereof, becomes the differentiating factor.

Intent in Contract Law

The realm of contracts thrives on mutual assent, and it becomes central to ascertain this.

  • Meeting of the Minds: Also known as “mutual assent”, this requires both parties in a contract to have a shared understanding of the terms. If one party is shown to have lacked genuine intent to be bound, the contract can be voided.
  • Objective vs. Subjective Intent: The law typically prioritises ‘objective’ evidence of intent (how a reasonable person would interpret actions or words) over ‘subjective’ intent (what a party claims they thought or felt).

In contract law, the parties’ aim or plan to enter into an agreement and be bound by it is often referred to as the “meeting of the minds.” It’s an essential element to form a valid contract. Without this mutual agreement, one could argue that a valid contract never existed.

Can a corporation or business entity possess intent?

A corporation or business entity can possess “corporate intent.” While a corporation is an artificial entity, it acts through its agents, such as directors, officers, and employees. The law often attributes the actions of these individuals to the corporation itself, especially when actions are taken within the scope of their employment or authority.

This concept is crucial in areas like corporate criminal liability, where a business can be held accountable for wrongful acts based on the collective actions of its representatives.

Are there specific tests or standards used by courts to determine intent?

In criminal law, the “mens rea” or mental state is examined, often through direct or circumstantial evidence. Actions, prior statements, context, and patterns of behaviour can infer intent. For contracts, the “meeting of the minds” principle evaluates if parties intended to be bound. In torts, the distinction between negligence and deliberate action is crucial.

While there’s no universal test, courts often seek evidence that shows the defendant’s purpose or conscious decision to act (or not act).

Can statements made before an act be used as evidence of intent?

Pre-act utterances, often termed “prior statements” or “declarations,” can shed light on an individual’s mindset leading up to an event. Courts often admit these as exceptions to hearsay rules, particularly if they offer insight into the declarant’s intentions, plans, or motives.

Such statements can be crucial in criminal prosecutions, contract disputes, or tort cases, where discerning the purpose behind actions is pivotal. However, the admissibility and weight of these statements vary based on jurisdiction and specific case circumstances.


One of the major challenges in the legal arena is actually proving the design or aim behind one’s actions. Unlike physical evidence, one can’t see or touch a person’s purpose. As such, courts often rely on external factors, such as behaviour, statements, or circumstantial evidence, to deduce it.

Related Articles

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Join Thousands of Subscribers Who Read Our Legal Opinions And Case Analysis.