For example, the University of California-Berkley lists Palantir as a supporter of its enterprise access program for a price of $20,000 per year. Stanford University`s Computer Forum counts Palantir as a member for $24,000 a year, while Brown University`s computer program earns $15,000 a year from Palantir. Under section 71 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, we see by «discoverer of lost property» a person who comes across goods that are not claimed or whose beneficial owner is not known. Such a person must take care of such lost property as a bailee, unless a true owner is found. It has the same responsibility, rights and obligations as a bailout under section 151 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. He is obliged to return the goods to the beneficial owner. He must take all measures to find real owners. He cannot refuse to deliver goods, otherwise he is responsible for the non-delivery of goods. In civil systems, the notion of intent to establish legal relations[d] is closely related to the «theory of will» of treaties, as represented by the German jurist Friedrich Carl von Savigny in his current nineteenth-century Roman law system.  In the nineteenth century, an important concept was that contracts were based on a meeting of minds between two or more parties and that their mutual consent to a company or their intention to enter into a contract was of the utmost importance. While it is generally true that courts want to uphold the intentions of the parties, courts moved to a more objective interpretative position during the second half of the nineteenth century, with an emphasis on how the parties had expressed their consent to an external agreement. In light of this change, it has always been said that «the intention to be legally bound» was a necessary element of a treaty, but it reflected a policy on when agreements should be implemented and when they should not be implemented.
Counterintuitive is the best way to know if the parties wanted to enter into a contract not to ask them, as this «subjective test» would give the villain a simple escape from responsibility. (He replied, «No! I didn`t intend to be bound.») Instead, as in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, the court applies the «objective test» and asks whether the reasonable viewer believes, after considering all the circumstances of the case, that the parties wished to be held. [b] As the announcement (pictured) indicated that the company had deposited «£1,000 at Alliance Bank to show sincerity in the matter», the court decided that any objective viewer reading this would accept a contract intent.