Intention Flashcards
What is intention R3P1
It’s about policy - whether contracts should be upheld
The courts don’t want to bother upholding trivial domestic agreements, but want to make sure commercial agreements are upheld. Not interested in the actual intension of the parties - what kind of contract is it.
There is legal intent if the deal looks like it’s a contract from Soli’s POV
Domestic contracts are presumed not to be binding, but there can be times of rebuttal, like in Tanner V Tanner.
Intention in domestic contracts R3P1
The courts don’t want to be bothered with upholding trivial domestic agreements.
This was shown in the case Balfour V Balfour (1919) - the plaintiff wife married the defendant husband in 1900. The parties worked in Ceylon and the parties lived there until 1915, when the husband had leave. When the husband had to return to Ceylon at the end of his leave, the wife was advised by her doctor to stay in England. Before the husband went back to Ceylon, the parties agreed that he would send the wife 30 shillings a month. Some months later the husband suggested they should remain apart. The wife then sought to enforce the agreement of 30 shillings a month.
Held - this was not a contract the court could enforce. As the couple were living in amity at the time of the agreement, it would be presumed that they had not intended that the agreement should be legally enforceable. The wife had failed to rebut the presumption in the case.
Since Balfour V Balfour there has been a presumption that domestic contracts are not intended to be binding.
A presumption is a starting point. If a husband and wife gave made a contract but H doesn’t want to uphold it, the starting point is that they didn’t intend to make a binding contract.
But this presumption can be rebutted if W can show that the kind of detail they made should be enforced.
What other case was the domestic presumption shown in R3P1
Jones V Padavatton (1968) - The plaintiff Mrs Jones was the mother of the defendant Mrs Jones. In 1962 the defendant daughter had a job in Washington DC, where she lived with her son. The mother persuaded the daughter to go to England and study the Bar and promised her $200 a month in maintenance. The mother hoped the daughter would qualify as a Barrister and then come and practice and live in Trinidad, where she lived. In 1964 the mother bought a house in England in which the daughter lived along tenants. The daughter was the mother’s agent for the income and expenses of the house. By 1967 the daughter hadn’t passed the first part of the two Bar examinations and hadn’t provided her mother with accounts of the house. The mother sought possession of the house against the daughter, which the daughter had revisited on the grounds that she had a contractual right to live there.
Held - the mother should have possession as there was no binding contract between the parties - Family agreements depend on the good faith of the promises which are made and not intended to be rigid, binding agreements.
Cases where presumption was rebutted in domestic contracts R3P1
Filler
Tanner V Tanner (1975) R3P1
P married a man, promised D, a single women that she and her two young children would be able to live in the house purchased by P until the children left school. D in reliance on this promise moved out of her rent controlled flat. The relationship ended and P claimed possession of the house.
Held - D had a contractual licence to live in the house purchased by P, so long as the children were school age and accommodation was reasonably required for her and the children.
Merritt V Merritt (1970) R3P1
The plaintiff wife and the defendant husband were married in 1941. The bought a house in the husband’s name in 1949 and transferred it into joint name in 1966. The husband left the home to live with another woman. The husband agreed to pay her £40 a month and left her to pay the remainder of the mortgage. At the wife’s insistence, the husband wrote ‘in consideration of the fact that you will pay all charges in the connection with the house - when the mortgage has been completed i agree to transfer the property into your sole ownership. When the wife had paid off the mortgage, the husband refused to transfer the house.
Held - although there was a presumption against an intention to form legal relations in the case of agreements between spouses living in amity, such a presumption did not apply to cases where the spouses were in the process of separation.
Parker V Clarke (1959) R3P1
The plaintiffs were Commander and Mrs Parker, the defendants Mr and Mrs Clark. Mrs Parker was Mrs Clark’s niece. The Clarks were in their late seventies and the Parkers used to visit them often, sometimes to help the Clarks domestically. After one such visit which had lasted for two or three weeks, Mr Clark suggested that the Parkers should come and live with the Clarks. Commander Parker wrote to Mr Clark expressing interest in the suggestion but pointing out that the Parkers would have to sell their own house. Mr Clark wrote back saying that this problem could be overcome by the Clarks leaving their house in their wills to Mrs Parker, the Parkers’ daughter, Pamela, and Mrs Parker’s sister. He also set out in some detail the arrangements for household expenses and promised to buy a television and a new car. Commander Parker accepted the proposed arrangements and the Parkers sold their house. They lent most of the proceeds to Pamela so that she could buy a flat. They informed the Clarks of this and came to live at the Clarks’ house. After about a year and a half, Mr Clark became dissatisfied with the arrangements and asked the Parkers to leave. The Parkers eventually left and sued the Clarks for damages for breach of contract.
Held there was a contract and the Parkers were entitled to recover the costs of moving and the third share of the Clarks’ house which was to be left to Mrs Parker.
amount to no more than a family arrangement of the type considered in Balfour v Balfour which the courts will not enforce. But, there is equally no doubt that arrangements of this sort, and in particular a proposal to leave property in a will, can be the subject of a binding contract.
Simpkins V Pays (1955) R3P1
The plaintiff lived in the defendant’s house, paying the defendant for board and lodging. Together with the defendant’s granddaughter, Esme, the parties entered newspaper competitions together. One of the competitions was in the Sunday Empire News and involved making three forecasts of the correct order of merit of eight fashion items. For seven or eight weeks, the plaintiff, the defendant and Esme each contributed one forecast to a coupon which was submitted in the name of the defendant. Then their entry won the £750 prize and the plaintiff sued the defendant for a third share. The winning line had been composed by Esme.
Held the plaintiff was entitled to £250, and so was Esme.
I think that in the present there was a mutuality of arrangement between the parties.
Intention and cases involving competitions R3P1
Filler
Lens V Devonshire Social Club (1914) R3P1
The ratio of this case is that social competitions don’t carry an intension to create legal relations. In this case the claimant sued for the prize in a gold club competition, they failed because ‘no one involved in the completion intended that legal consequences should flow’. This is an example of the judge having a pretty clear idea on who should win the case (the club) and making sure their interpretation of the facts fitted that outcome. This agrees with the policy that was developing at the time that social and domestic contracts had no place in court.
O’Brian V MGN (2001) R3P1
A scratch card competition in the Daily Mirror had led to legal relations. You could dismiss Lens for being old fashioned and not representing current thinking, there are also differences between these cases. O’Brain was published in a national newspaper. Also the prize money was substantial at £50,000. This could be seen as following the reasoning in Carlill V CSBC, it was published to look like a serious offer on purpose to attract readers and increase sales. The courts don’t like companies making offers to consumers for commercial benefits and there claiming there was no legal intent.
What is the presumption in commercial cases R3P2
It’s the opposite, there is a presumption for legal intent but this can be rebutted by showing that the parties did not intend to be bound.
Why does there need to be a presumption in commercial cases R3P2
Companies need certainty when they make contracts, they need to know that the can rely on them being enforced and that there will consequences if the other side breaks them.
So the presumption in commercial is that there is an intension to create legal relations. This is the case when companies make contracts with other companies or consumers.
In Carlill V Carbonic Smoke Ball Company the company claimed that their offer of 100 pound reward was mere puff and not intended to be taken seriously. The court disagreed and said that when a company makes a promise like that it’s done for commercial gain and customers can expect it to be relied upon.
Example of a case that follows Carlill R3P2
In McGowan V Radio Buxton she was able to successful sue for the value of the car because there was a presumption to create legal relations and they had done the competition for commercial gain (more listeners). This follows Carlill V Carbonic Smoke Ball Company as the court said ‘when a company makes a promise like that it’s done for commercial gain, customers can expect it to be relied upon.
When can you rebut the presumption in commercial cases R3P2
The presumption can be rebutted if the parties use clear words in the contract to show that they do not intend to make a binding agreement. In the case of Rose and Frank V Compton the words that were used to rebut the presumption were ‘this agreement is not entered into as a formal or legal agreement, and shall not be subject to legal jurisdiction in the law courts.’
