Intention (Social and Domestic) Cases

Question 1

Jones v Padavatton

Answer 1

facts: they lived together in Sri Lanka. Joan bought land, Chandra financially contributed to it. When separated, Chandra claimed a share of the property.
held: court ruled in favour of Chandra for his interest based on contributions and their shared intention.
principle: household expenses by unmarried partners do not automatically entitle them to property rights.

Question 2

Wilson v Burnett

Answer 2

facts: Mr. Wilson claimed ownership of a property he allegedly bought from Mr. Burnett. Mr. Burnett argued there was no valid agreement.
held: court ruled in favor of Mr. Wilson, affirming a valid contract for the property sale and Mr. Wilson’s ownership.
principle: contracts can be voided if one party obtained consent through fraudulent misrepresentation.

Question 3

Parker v Clarke

Answer 3

facts: Mr. Parker claimed a contract for land purchase from Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke disputed the existence of a binding contract.
held: court sided with Mr. Parker, confirming a valid contract for the land sale.
principle: fraudulent misrepresentation by a seller can make a contract voidable.