Specifically, the court addresses the following DIFFERENT KINDS of INTENT:
(1) a volitional act (i.e., the moving of a chair). This is sometimes referred to as "simple" intent. Paragraph 8 of the edited opinion; See also page 7 of MTL(2d).
(2) an act done for the purpose of causing the contact (I.e., moving the chair while the plaintiff was in the act of sitting down). This type of intent is an example of either "actual" intent (where the actor acts with the subjective purpose of causing harm to the plaintiff), see page 7 of MTL (2d);
OR,
(3) "specific" intent (where the actor acts to bring about a specific purpose for whatever reason, such as simply moving the chair while the plaintiff was in the act of sitting down). See Paragraph 8 of the edited opinion; pages 7-8 of MTL(2d). Notice that the real DIFFERENCE between "actual" intent and "specific" intent is basically dependent upon what the plaintiff can PROVE as to the actor's SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE for doing the act in question.
(4) "implied" intent (where act is done with knowledge a to a substantial certainty that [harmful or offensive bodily] contact will occur). Paragraph 7 of the edited opinion; page 7 MTL(2d).
At this point, you well might be asking, "where did these highlighted terms, supra, come from? I did not see them being used anywhere in the court's discussion in either the edited or the original version of the Garratt case? How are we supposed to know these terms?
You are correct in observing that the court does not use MOST of these highlighted terms, supra, in its actual opinion. (Actually, the court does refer to the term "volitional act" in paragraph 8 of the edited opinion). However, the court does still refer to and DISCUSS ALL of these different kinds of intent (which is what this Question asked you to identify, regardless of what each type of intent might actually be called) in its overall discussion of the Garratt case, supra. Indeed, many of the references that the court uses (particularly the Restatement references) also refer to these same terms, either directly by name or at least conceptually. As you learn more about the specific terminology that is typically used when discussing the legal concept of "INTENT" with respect to the various types of intentional torts, you will come to more easily recognize which of these terms the court is addressing, and then you will be able to read the case with that additional understanding as to what the court is saying.