INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS

Question 1

ITCLR

1) COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS AGREEMENT

2) SOCIAL, FAMILY, AND OTHER DOMESTIC AGREEMENT

CHOO TIONG HIN (1959)
BALFOUR V. BALFOUR (1919)
MERRIT V. MERRIT(1970)
PETTITT V. PETTITT (1970)

Answer 1

AGREEMENT THAT ARE OPEN EVERYDAY IN DOMESTIC AND SOCIAL LIFE WHERE THE PARTIES DONT INTENDED TO GO TO COURT.
THERES 2 TYPES OF AGREEMENT

1) COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS AGREEMENT
-PARTIES DO INTEND TO MAKE LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. THE REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION IS THAT LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE INTENDED.

IN THE CASE CARLIL V. CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL (1893)
THE DEFENDANT MAKE ADVERTISING ABOUT THE SMOKE BALL PREVENTING INFLUENZA. THEY PROMISE TO PAY 100 TO ANYBODY CONTACTED INFLUENZA. TO SHOW THEIR SINCERITY THEY DEPOSITED 1000 TO THEIR BANKERS. THE DEFENDANT SAID THE ADVERTISEMENT IS JUST A MERE PUFF AND DOES NOT INTEND TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION. THE COURT OF APPEAL REJECTED THIS. THE BANK IS A EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT HAD CONTEMPLATED LEGAL LIABILITY WHEN THEY ISSUED ADVERTISIMENT.

2) SOCIAL, FAMILY, AND OTHER DOMESTIC AGREEMENT

SOCIAL ARRANGEMENT DO NOT AMOUNT OF CONTRACT BCS THE PARTIES DO NOT INTEND TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION

IN THE CASE CHOO TIONG HIN V. CHOO HOCK SWEE (1959)
THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS WIFE LIVE IN SINGAPORE AND THEY WERE POOR. DURING THAT TIME THEY HAD2 DAUGHTER AND 5 ADOPTED CHILDREN. THE WIFE DIED IN 1953 AND REMARRIED IN 1955. BOTH DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF THEY HAD QUARREL AND THE DEFENDANT LEAVE THE HOUSE AND LATER CLAIM THE POSSESION OF THE FARM AND OTHER PROPERTY. THERE WAS A CONTRACT WHEREBY THE DEFENDANT AGREED TO BE ADOPTED AND TO WORK AT FARM AND ACQUIRE WEALTH AND WERE ENTITTLED EQUALLY IN THE FARM POSSESION. THE COURT HELD THAT THE APPELENTS EVEN IF PROVED, WAS NOT INTENDED TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION

IN DOMESTIC ARRANGEMENT, THE LAW PRESUME AGREEMENT BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE IS NOT INTENDED TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION

IN THE CASE BALFOUR V. BALFOUR 1919