Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
6 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Objective Intention |
Parties judged based on how their conduct reflects intentions rather than what they claim intentions were. O'Rourke v Talbot |
|
|
Familial Arrangements |
Balfour v Balfour. Married couple lived apart, he promised monthly allowance. Separated, wife sued for breach of contract. Failed as it was presumed to not have intention for legal relations. Exception is Merritt v Merritt, where wife succeeded as husband had signed a contract. |
|
|
Coleman v Mullen |
Woman helped out elderly neighbour, who died. Claimed money for quantum meruit. Failed, she would have done it anyway if no money could have been gained. Question of if volunteer carers are due quantum merit was one for legislation to decide. |
|
|
Commercial Agreements. |
Presumed to intend to create legal relations. Includes workplace lottery syndicates (Simpkins v Pays), this covers all commercial agreements, even those of people in close relationships. |
|
|
Express exclusion of enforceability |
Essentially if they outright call it a gentlemen's agreement then it is one, Rose & Frank v Crompton. |
|
|
Letters of comfort |
Assurance provided by parent company regarding subsidiary company, not legally binding. Simply by being called letters of comfort does not make them one, they can be found to enforce contractual obligations(Banque Brussels Lambert SA v Australian National Industries). Kleinwort Benson v Maalaysia Mining Coro Bhd, they were found to enforce a moral, not legal, obligation. |
