Intent to create legal relations Flashcards
Why must intent to create legal relations (‘legal intent’) exist?
For an agreement to be legally enforceable
In social or domestic settings, what is the courts starting assumption?
There is no intent to create legal relations
Case for starting assumption in social situations.
Wilson v Burnett-Bingo
Case for starting assumption in social situations being overturned on consideration of all the facts.
Simpkins v Pays-Fashion competitions
Case for starting assumption in domestic situations.
Balfour v Balfour-married couple
Case for starting assumption in domestic situations being overturned on consideration of all the facts.
Merritt v Merritt -separate couple
Facts of Simpkins v Pays (1955)
3 people entered into weekly competition run by Sunday Empire News.
Coupon sent in same person’s name each week and all 3 made forecasts and took it in turn to pay.
Agreed if any of them won they would share winnings between them.
Person won and refused to distribute money.
Lodger brought action to claim 1/3 of the prize money.
Facts of Wilson v Burnett (2007).
3 work colleagues played bingo together one evening.
2 of them claimed that there had been an agreement to share their winnings but the third, who had won, disputed this.
Casual conversation not sufficient evidence to prove the presumption.
Facts of Balfour v Balfour (1919)
Husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to wife.
At time of agreement couple were happily married,
Relationship later soured and husband stopped making the payments.
Wife sought to enforce the agreement.
Facts of Merritt v Merritt (1970)
Husband left wife.
Agreed to pay wife £40 per month.
Signed a document confirming that when she paid off balance on mortgage he would transfer the matrimonial home into her sole name.
Wife would pay off mortgage and acquire declaration hat house belonged to her.
Husband appealed.
What is the starting assumption of courts in commercial situations?
There is intent to create legal relations.
Case for starting assumption in commercial situations.
Esso v Customs & Excise-world cup coins
Facts of Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1976).
Esso ran promotion whereby any person purchasing 4 gallons of petrol would get a free coin from their World Cup Coins Collection.
Question for court was whether these coins were ‘produced in quantity for general resale’ if so they would be subject to tax and Esso would be liable to pay £200,000.
Esso argued coins were simply a free gift and the promotion was not intended to have legal effect and also there was no resale.
Case for starting assumption being overturned in commercial situations on the basis of all the facts.
Jones v Vernons’ Pools
Facts of Jones v Vernons’ Pools (1938)
Mr. Jones filled in two winning entries on coupons for a sales promotion and sent it to Vernon Pools. The coupons contained the words of “binding in honour only” and that the entry of the coupon “shall not give rise to any legal relations.” The company claimed to only have received one of the coupons and not the other. However, Mr. Jones claimed that the coupon entry was a contractually binding arrangement and that he was entitled to the prize money. The primary question arose as to whether the coupons legally-bound the company to pay Mr. Jones the winning prize money.
