Intention

Front 1

Balfour v Balfour

Back 1

When a contract is made between husband and wife when they are happy it is not intended to be legally enforceable when they separate.

Hint 1

Advised to stay in uk.

Front 2

Jones v Padavatton

Back 2

No binding contract between mother and daughter, mother should have possession.

Hint 2

Daughter training to be barrister.

Front 3

Merritt v Merritt

Back 3

At the time of the agreement the couple were already separating, distinguished Balfour, intended it to be binding, wrote it down.

Hint 3

Already separated.

Front 4

Parker v Clark

Back 4

Where there is substantial financial reliance under the agreement it is more likely to be seen as intended and be legally enforceable, selling the house.

Hint 4

Parkers and Clarks move in.

Front 5

Tanner v Tanner

Back 5

Married man promised single woman house if she moved out of flat and children were school age, he sued, there was intention.

Hint 5

Rent-controlled flat.

Front 6

Albert v Motor Insurer's Bureau

Back 6

Whether someone paying petrol money is a commercial contract. They were as he had given lifts to different people over a period of time. Therefore there was an intention to create a binding contract. Parliament changed it so that you're still insured if petrol money is given, unless it's for service.

Hint 6

Officious bystander.

Front 7

Jones v Vernon's Pools Ltd

Back 7

A condition stating that the coupon did not give rise to any legal relations meant there was no intention.

Hint 7

Binding in honour only.

Front 8

Simpkins v Pays

Back 8

There was a binding contract despite the family connection as the lodger was also party to the contract. This rebutted the presumption of no intention to create legal relations.

Hint 8

Esme, plaintiff, defendant.

Front 9

Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise Commissioners

Back 9

They were supplied and not sold so no tax but this was to increase sales so there was intention.

Hint 9

World cup coins.

Front 10

Edwards v Skyways

Back 10

Pilots made redundant, offered payment, co. argued it was not legally enforceable but there was as there was intention. Ex gratia meant that the company did not admit pre-existing liability to make payment, not that it was without legal effect.

Hint 10

Ex gratia payment.

Front 11

Rose and Frank Co. v Crompton and Bros. Ltd

Back 11

A clause meant that the agreement was binding in honour only and legally unenforceable, the contracts themselves were binding but the exclusivity clause was only a promise.

Hint 11

Promise of exclusivity- papers co.

Front 12

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corp

Back 12

Comfort letter was not binding but a statement of present fact not that it would be continued in the future, unable to recover money from subsidiary.

Hint 12

Subsidiary company, M.