In the domestic legal doctrine, there has historically been an opinion about the coincidence, when concluding a contract, of the will of its parties, the emergence of a single (common) will on the terms of the concluded contract. Such word usage, supported by a number of modern authors, corresponds to the legal tradition, but contradicts both civil legislation and the logic of legal thinking. When writing the work, the method of system analysis, methods of formal logic, and historical and legal approach were used. Based on the results of applying the above methods, the author proposes to understand the conclusion of a contract as an act of coordination (coordination) of the interests of the parties, which is expressed in the agreed terms of the contractual obligation. The work criticizes the main concepts that defend the coincidence (coordination) of the will of the parties as a result of the pre-contractual process. The opinion is substantiated that coordination is precisely the form of movement of the negotiation process and cannot be its goal, whereas it is precisely the achievement of a joint mutually acceptable decision for the parties regarding the terms of the contract that will be the result of such activity on coordinating the interests of the subjects of law. This or that interest formalized in the terms of the contract expresses a specific need of its party, the satisfaction of which (and not the coincidence or coordination of the will of its parties) is aimed at the activity (legal coordination) on its conclusion. The findings can be taken into account in the future in law-making and law enforcement practice to increase the level of legal certainty and clarify the concepts existing in law.