Intention to Create Legal Relations Flashcards
Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise
- commercial/business contracts: presumption that there IS an intention to create legal relations, and so are legally binding
- also free gifts/comp prizes
Edward v Skyways
com/bus, presumption can be rebutted: where clear words are used to show no legal intent
Jones v Vernon Pools
com/bus RB: such as ‘act of goodwill’ or ‘binding in honour/ gentlemen’s agreement’
Kleinwort Benson v Malaysian Mining
com/bus RB: or where words used are too vague to be a specific promise e.g ‘letter of comfort’
McGowan v Radio Buxton
- com/bus: contracts involving free gifts and competition prizes are legally binding
- also EPvCE
Balfour v Balfour
-domestic/social contracts, e.g between family/friends, presumption that there is NO intention to create legal relations, and so are not legally binding
Merritt v Merritt
dom/soc RB: where there is a commercial basis to the c, usually involving money exchange and basis is no longer on ‘love & affection1
Simpkins v Pays, Parker v Clark
dom/soc RB: the parties acted on a promise
Granatino v Radmacher
-pre-nup agreements are increasingly seen as leg bin
Burden of Proof
the party trying to est (no) legal intent has the burden of proving that the rebuttal applies, in this case is (C)
I2CLR Checklist
1) -com def EPvCE
- RB: clear, act of gw, vague EvS, JvVP, KBvMM
- gifts & BoP MvRB, EPvCE
2) -dom def BvB
- RB: money, xlove, action MvM, SvP, PvC
- pre-nup & BoP GvR
- commercial/business contracts: presumption that there IS an intention to create legal relations, and so are legally binding
- also free gifts/comp prizes
Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise
com/bus, presumption can be rebutted: where clear words are used to show no legal intent
Edward v Skyways
com/bus RB: such as ‘act of goodwill’ or ‘binding in honour/ gentlemen’s agreement’
Jones v Vernon Pools
com/bus RB: or where words used are too vague to be a specific promise e.g ‘letter of comfort’
Kleinwort Benson v Malaysian Mining
