Intention to enter legal agreements

Question 1

• married couple lived apart from each other as the husband worked as a civil servant
• he promised her a monthly allowance of £30 while they lived apart
• they separated and the wife sued for breach of contract
• typical consideration in such circumstances was “natural love and affection” - not legally binding - common law does not regulate the form of agreements between spouses

Answer 1

Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Question 2

• mother living in Trinidad promised her daughter an allowance if she left her job in Washington and returned to England to study for the Bar
• Two years later, the mother bought a house in London and told her daughter she could maintain herself by taking lodgers.
• Three years on, the mother attempted to evict her daughter as she had not yet completed the Bar exam
• CoA: did not intend to create a contract and so the mother was entitled to possession of the house
  
  • minority: consideration was giving up life in Washington (agreement was contract), implied term that only last reasonable time for daughter to pass bar- did not happen

Answer 2

Jones v. Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328

Question 3

• plaintiff was seriously injured in a road traffic accident and agreed to pay his mother and brother a weekly amount as compensation for their nursing services to him
• recorded formally in writing
• litigation here was not intra-familial, but directed against the person responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries
  
  • family agreement decided to be enforceable, the plaintiff could recover compensation in respect of same from the defendant
  • reasoning: if it was nurse instead of mother, they would get paid as well
  • possible difference in interpretation of family litigation

Answer 3

Haggar v. De Placido [1972] 1 WLR 716

Question 4

• quantum meruit claim for services rendered by the plaintiff to an elderly childless widow during her lifetime
• plaintiff estimated that she worked about 20 hours a week for the deceased over a long period of time - was a “very clear bond of friendship between the parties”
• CC: compensation on a quantum meruit basis for services rendered to the deceased, and was awarded €25,000
• HC: reversed the award on the basis that there was no intention to create legal relations
  
  • would have assisted her anyways and also policy consideration

Answer 4

Coleman v. Mullen [2011] IEHC 179

Question 5

• If Shares of sports direct increase to 8 pounds, bonus of 15 million
• Mr. remembered he was promised a bonus
• Mr. was like I will not pay u that - more like a joke
• Just got a bonus of 1 million pounds - not enough for Mr.
• Court ruling: an evening of drinking in a pub with three investment bankers is an unlikely setting in which to negotiate a contractual bonus arrangement with a consultant who was meeting them on behalf of the company
  
  • “five guys and a barman in a pub” does not per se prevent a contract from coming into being: “a contract can be made anywhere in any circumstances.”
• Court reasoning: lost on intention and certainty of terms (too vague- unclear what parties should do - everyone else thought it is a joke- leap of imagination to think it is serious) and it was not in writing (not a requirement but in this case would make plaintiff evidentially stronger - without balance of probabilities what was sad- difficult to agree- everyone was drunk)

Answer 5

Blue v. Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928

Question 6

• three housemates regularly entered the competition without agreeing any rules regarding payment of postage and the entry fee
• one week the granddaughter won £750
• lodger sued for her share of the winnings
• Court held: question was not “who had paid the entry fee” but rather whether there was a syndicate in being with risks and profits intended to be shared - awarded £250 to plaintiff

Answer 6

Simpkins v. Pays [1955] 1 WLR 975- lottery case

Question 7

• number of persons signed the back of a ticket containing the winning numbers for a €3.4 million jackpot
• defendant was nominated to collect the prize, and subsequently claimed to be the sole winner and that other signatories were added on advice to the effect that any gifts she might make to them would be exempt from tax
• Court held: insufficient explanation - plaintiffs signed for their benefit not as gift

Answer 7

Walsh v. Walsh (No.1) [2017] IEHC 181 - national lottery

Question 8

• defendants gave to the plaintiffs in writing the right to sell their tissues in the US and Canada for a certain period of time (which could be extended)
• “Honourable Pledge Clause” -unusual - makes it legally not enforceable
• When the defendants ended the deal without proper notice, the plaintiffs sued for breach of the agreement
  
  • They first sued for breach of the 1913 agreement
  • The plaintiffs’ second claim was based on specific orders accepted by the defendants before they abandoned the long-running arrangement.
• Court held:
  
  • The first claim for breach of the 1913 agreement failed due to the exclusion of enforceability
  • plaintiffs succeeded on the second claim, arguing that each specific order formed a separate, enforceable contract based on the parties’ actions. The court ruled that while the overall agreement wasn’t legally binding, individual transactions still carried legal significance

Answer 8

Rose & Frank v. Crompton [1925] AC 445

Question 9

badly worded - worded in present tense - unsure if same policy long-run
- Court held: comfort letter was just that and not a contract
- parties had referred to the document as a comfort letter, refuse to give effect to the meaning of the words used
- not intend to give guarantee- refused to do so before giving letter of comfort

Answer 9

Kleinwort Benson v. Malaysia Mining Corp Bhd [1989]