The legal position of both parties are dependent on whether or not a contract is formed. In this case it must be examined if both Ellie and Hasla had an intention to form legal relations with each other. The intention to create legal relations is defined merely as two or more parties who agree to be bound by the law in an agreement. This doctrine must be differentiated between commercial agreements – where an intention is generally presumed – and social agreements, where courts have agreed are not legally enforceable unless there are extenuating circumstances. Balfour v Balfour (1923) is a defining case on this differentiation. It was held by the court that the agreements between a husband and his wife, while they were still living together,
…show more content…
Whether this domestic agreement was not meant to be binding is the contentious issue. The notion that Ellie is able to seek advice from Hasla regarding the lottery numbers, however, would suggest that the relationship between both parties is amicable to a sufficient degree that the principles of Balfour would apply over the case of Merritt , in which the court decided that the agreements between separated partners could be binding in a court of law. Due to the similarities in the situation between the current lottery situation and Balfour, it can be asserted that Ellie and Hasla did not intend to create legal relations, and thus Hasla will not be able to claim ‘one-fifth [or more] of any …show more content…
In such a scenario it may be seen that Bemo is the offeror – he is offering to withdraw from the group and Ellie would be the offeree, as it is her that Bemo must communicate his revocation before her purchase of the lottery tickets. The fact that Ellie checked her email only the day after is of paramount importance, because it suggests that Bemo’s attempt to contact her to inform her of his withdrawal was futile. In addition to this, it does not matter that Bemo attempted to destroy his own offer and re-join the group; even if he had not, he would still be able to make a claim for the winnings. Ellie’s failure to read the email could prove to be profitable for Bemo, as it is likely for him to make a successful claim for his share of the
Whether this domestic agreement was not meant to be binding is the contentious issue. The notion that Ellie is able to seek advice from Hasla regarding the lottery numbers, however, would suggest that the relationship between both parties is amicable to a sufficient degree that the principles of Balfour would apply over the case of Merritt , in which the court decided that the agreements between separated partners could be binding in a court of law. Due to the similarities in the situation between the current lottery situation and Balfour, it can be asserted that Ellie and Hasla did not intend to create legal relations, and thus Hasla will not be able to claim ‘one-fifth [or more] of any …show more content…
In such a scenario it may be seen that Bemo is the offeror – he is offering to withdraw from the group and Ellie would be the offeree, as it is her that Bemo must communicate his revocation before her purchase of the lottery tickets. The fact that Ellie checked her email only the day after is of paramount importance, because it suggests that Bemo’s attempt to contact her to inform her of his withdrawal was futile. In addition to this, it does not matter that Bemo attempted to destroy his own offer and re-join the group; even if he had not, he would still be able to make a claim for the winnings. Ellie’s failure to read the email could prove to be profitable for Bemo, as it is likely for him to make a successful claim for his share of the