Intention
Balfour v. Balfour 1919 Court of Appeal
- she went ill on a trip to England and the doctor recommended her to stay there
- he promised her L30 a month for her maintenance, went back to Ceylon and did not pay
No binding promise
No consideration, no intention to create a legally binding relation
The plaintiff was fired. H0e got his normal state pension, but he wanted more since he had paid into a private pension insurance. He decided:
- not to take up his rights to have a full pension at 50
- but to withdraw his total contributions.
In Return, the the company would make an 'ex gratia payment' 'approximately equal' to the sum of his contributions.
'Ex gratia' is not strong enough to exclude responsibility.
'Approximately' was clear enough.
It was a business agreement, it was presumed to be binding unless the contrary is proved.
The plaintiff did what they wanted him to do, so they had an advantage.
Jones v. Paddawatton 1969 Court of Appeal
Mrs Jones promised her daughter to pay her maintenance if she gave up her job and trained to be a barrister.
The fixed sum was not enough, so the mother bought a house where the daughter could live for free and could give room to other people.
After six years, the daughter was still not successful, so her mother wanted the agreement to be ended.
Mere family agreement (domestic agreement) - presumed not to be binding.
But there was a contract; but it was meant to last for a reasonable time.
CON The daughter gave up her good job and relied on her mother.
'Reasonable time' was strictly contrued because it was a domestic agreement.
- Mr Jones said he sent in two coupons, but the pool only received one, as they said. The winning pool was not received
- question: is the coupon a part of a contract?
- the coupon contained the words that the entry "shall not give rise to any legal relationships, or be legally enforceable,
The agreement is not a contract creating legal relations.
- he left her
- they agreed in a car that if she paid the outstanding payment, she would become the sole owner of the house
There was a binding contract.
PRO in BALFOUR v BALFOUR, there was no reason to think they had not been happily married
PRO the further you are living away from the other person (also in terms of personal relations), the more likely you have a contract and no domestic agreement
The writing played a rather subordinate role.
Parker v. Clark 1960 Exeter Assises
An old couple promised a young couple: if you sell your cottage and come to live with us in our house we will make a will that we leave you this house and its contents when we die.
The young couple sold their cottage and moved into the house.
The old man tore up his will; the Parkers moved out and sued.
The Parkers got damages to buy a new house because of breach of contract.
Mr Clarke has the right to tear up his will.
The Parkers relied and suffered (equity).
The Parkers had written evidence (always cite BALFOUR v BALFOUR here).
Rose, Frank and Co. v. Crampton Bros. 1932 House of Lords
There was an agreement about carbon tissues ("honourable pledge") which should not be subject to legal jurisdiction in the law courts.
The company could end this agreement at will.
The agreement was not a legally binding contract.
The intention of the parties as shown in the agreement should be respected.
Mr Mackenzie wanted Mrs Wakeham to give up her flat and look after him; for this she should get in his will.
She provided money for food and coal.
He died and left her nothing.
Agreement.
There was evidence in part performance.