Intention to create legal relations Flashcards
What part can post and the postal rules apply to?
Only for letter of acceptance not offers
What are the 3 postal rules?
- Only applies if it is the usual or expected means
- Properly addressed and stamped
- Offeree must prove it was posted
What case relates to postal and its significance?
Adam v Linsell (1818) - If the rules apply (postal), acceptance takes place at the moment it is posted
What three cases relate to electronic communication?
- Entores v Miles Far East (1955) - Non postal, acceptance once offeror aware of it
- Brinkson Ltd v Stahag Stahl (1983) - Acceptance once message opened
- Byrne v Tienhoven (1880) - Postal v Telegram - issues when both are at use
What are details, significance and outcome of Byrne v Tienhoven?
Claimants sued D for not delivering.
D sent a letter of offer on 1st of October which took 10 days to deliver (one lived in Cardiff other in New York). It was received on 11th which the claimant replied to by telegram, accepting it.
However, on the 8th the defendants had sent a letter of withdrawal.
Courts found that the letter of withdrawal on October 8th was not effective (as it is postal), whereas the acceptance had taken place already as telegram communicated the acceptance once the offeror was aware of it. Claimants successful.
For a contact to be legally binding there must be?
Offer + Acceptance + Agreements + Intention to create legal relations (ITCLR)
When is (ITCLR) assumed and not?
- Assumed to exist in business agreements
2 Assumed to NOT exist in social or domestic agreements
However both can be rebutted.
What are the three main cases in social and domestic agreements (ITCLR) which are specifically about couples/married couple?
- Balfour v Balfour (1919) - Not binding - domestic arrangement + amicable couple at the time of agreement
- Merritt v Merritt (1971) - Binding - Seperated married couple + about maintenance payments
- Jones v Padavattan (1989) - Presumed that co-habituating couples would not want to create enforceable contractual obligations
What are three main cases in social and domestic agreements (ITCLR) about what shows ITCLR?
- Simpkins v Pays (1955) - If money changed hands it is likely to be a commercial arrangement therefore LEGALLY BINDING
- Wilson v Burnett (2007) - asked ‘if she was going to share’ suggested there was not any ITCLR yet, and it was a social arrangement
- Peter v Clarke (1960) - If parties put up financial security at risk, it can be assumed it should be legally binding (there is ITCLR)
Was Balfour v Balfour (1919) binding, and why?
Not binding as it was about domestic arrangement between two amicable married couple so it was a social/domestic agreement
Why was Merritt v Merritt (1971) binding but Balfour wasn’t?
In Merritt the couple were seperated which warrants a solicitor, usually the law does not get invovled in social/domestic agreements. However, as it was about future maintenance paymets it is considered to be business. Whereas as Balfour had a married couple about domestic arrangement.
Evaluation note - This precedent is confusing and so it can be unclear when something is no longer social/domestic and becomes a commercial agreement
Why in Jones v Padavattan (1989) was it assumed there was no ITCLR?
Between a mother and daughter about domestics. Therefore it is assumed as per the rule that there is no ITCLR.
Why was Simpkins v Pays (1955) assumed to be binding?
Money had exchanged hands, so it is likely it is a business agreement, which is presumed to have ITCLR
Why was Peter v Clarke assumed to be binding?
Even if it with a partner or friends as there was financial security at risk it is assumed to have ITCLR, specifically because of the risk.
What is the presumption of business arrangements?
That it is legally binding, however can be rebutted, e.g - The gentlemen’s case
