I'm unsure what color the sky is in
your world, but here on earth contracts are regularly invalidated for suc. I could quote countless of district-level cases paywalled behind LexisNexis, but let's stick to just some high-profile cases that made it to the appellate level:
In
Kotler v. Shipman Associates, LLC, C.A. No. 2017-0457-JRS:
"Fully Executed Contract Ruled Unenforceable ... the Court of Chancery held that a fully executed agreement between an employee and her employer did not reflect a meeting of the minds and therefore there was no valid contract...."
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery opinion should be read by all lawyers who seek to avoid the risk of a fully executed contract being ruled
www.delawarelitigation.com
Utica Builders, LLC v. Collins, a New York court ruled there was no binding contract for a real estate sale because there was no "meeting of the minds"
"... The existence of a binding contract was not dependent on the subjective intent of the parties. In determining whether the parties entered into a contractual agreement, the Court looked to the objective manifestations of the intent of the parties as gathered by their expressed words and deeds. To create a binding contract, there must have been a meeting of the minds, such that there was a manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that the parties were truly in agreement with respect to all material terms."
www.sgrlaw.com
Which is why courts give extreme deference to "no meeting of minds" claims by individuals seeking to invalidate such TOS contracts. Learn how the laws operate in the country you live in: it will serve you well.
You're throwing things at the wall to see what sticks at this point. I'm certain you did not read or understand these cases.
The passages you're copy-pasting into our discussion are first principles of contracts--language the court recites before getting to what was actually dispositive in their judgment. If you were to cite the "meeting of the minds principle," and try to form an argument around that, citing these cases, for rescinding Sony's TOS, you might as well argue the "steeling is wrong principle" or the "goo goo ga ga principle."
These aren't cases about "meeting of the minds principle," they are cases about sloppy contract execution--the mechanics of offer and acceptance. In your first case, the parties signed 2 different contracts. One party took the signature page of a contract and stuck it onto a completely different agreement. You can't cite this case to rescind Sony's TOS. It would be a slam dunk summary judgment for Sony.
Same for your second case, offer and acceptance never occurred, there was a counteroffer which was incorrectly treated as acceptance by one of the parties.
Unfortunately, with something as simple as Sony's TOS, there isn't enough mud to muddy the waters re offer and acceptance. The consumer clicked "I agree" at some point. The contract was formed, offer and acceptance occurred. I don't know if you are a self-styled expert on everything under the sun, but I humbly suggest you've wandered outside of your bailiwick here.
Look at the language you quoted--courts rely on objective manifestations of intent, not on subjective understanding of the parties. This is what laymen tend to get wrong about contracts and "meeting of the minds principle." The cases you cited don't stand for the proposition that you can back out of an already executed agreement because you thought it meant something else. These are cases where an agreement never happened because they were never executed properly. If the "meeting of the minds principle" operated they way you seem to be suggesting, basically no contract would ever be enforceable. Think about it. You could just say, "I didn't think we meant that," and weasel your way out of any agreement. Yes, sometimes it would be just, but courts simply aren't prepared to evaluate everyone's subjective understanding of every single contract.
