Intention to Create legal relations
Chen-wishart ch. 2 - 2.7
Was it intended
- Carlill v carbolic smoke ball co
- An objective test
- What a reasonable reader would think
‘It seems to me that in order to arrive at a right conclusion we must read this advertisement in its plain meaning, as the
public would understand it’
‘ i think it was intended to be understood by the public as an offer which was to be acted upon
- Bown LJ
More Objectivity
Balfour v Balfour
- Nobody would suggest in ordinary circumstances that those agreements result in what we know as a contract
2 types of case
- A; social or domestic arrangements
- B; business arrangements
2 types of presumption
- A;domestic so not intended to be legally binding
- B; business so is intended to be legally binding
The Domestic Presumption
Balfour v Balfour - While Husband & Wife – H promised allowance to W – not legally binding
Domestic
Coward v M.I.B - petrol money paid from time to time - unlikely that either party contemplated that there was any
legally binding agreement
Albert v M.I.B - understood by all that passengers would make a payment - beyond mere social kindness = legal relations
Only a Presumption
Hadley v KEmp
- Close knit group of friends
- band not just for the business but also because they loved what they were doing:
- promise not made with an intention to create legal relations.
More Domesticity
- Jones padavatton; family arrangements in which each party trusted the other. There was a presumption against
legal instent
- BUT
- Parker v Clark - House sharing - each side had intended to create a legally binding agreement
Its all a Lottery
- Simpkins v Pays - 3 contributed to entry; fee agreed all should share equally = legal relations
- Wilson v Burnett; chat/ talk about sharing insufficient evidence, of binding agreement
Chen-wishart ch. 2 - 2.7
Was it intended
- Carlill v carbolic smoke ball co
- An objective test
- What a reasonable reader would think
‘It seems to me that in order to arrive at a right conclusion we must read this advertisement in its plain meaning, as the
public would understand it’
‘ i think it was intended to be understood by the public as an offer which was to be acted upon
- Bown LJ
More Objectivity
Balfour v Balfour
- Nobody would suggest in ordinary circumstances that those agreements result in what we know as a contract
2 types of case
- A; social or domestic arrangements
- B; business arrangements
2 types of presumption
- A;domestic so not intended to be legally binding
- B; business so is intended to be legally binding
The Domestic Presumption
Balfour v Balfour - While Husband & Wife – H promised allowance to W – not legally binding
Domestic
Coward v M.I.B - petrol money paid from time to time - unlikely that either party contemplated that there was any
legally binding agreement
Albert v M.I.B - understood by all that passengers would make a payment - beyond mere social kindness = legal relations
Only a Presumption
Hadley v KEmp
- Close knit group of friends
- band not just for the business but also because they loved what they were doing:
- promise not made with an intention to create legal relations.
More Domesticity
- Jones padavatton; family arrangements in which each party trusted the other. There was a presumption against
legal instent
- BUT
- Parker v Clark - House sharing - each side had intended to create a legally binding agreement
Its all a Lottery
- Simpkins v Pays - 3 contributed to entry; fee agreed all should share equally = legal relations
- Wilson v Burnett; chat/ talk about sharing insufficient evidence, of binding agreement
