• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/14

Click to flip

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;

14 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

What is intention to create legal relations

An agreement made with an intention to make a contract legally binding

What is the social agreement presumption

Agreements made between family and friends do not intend to be legally binding Jones v Padavatton. And they are purely social or domestic Balfour


What's the commercial presumption

Commercial agreements do intend to create legal relations Esso v Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Jones v Vernon's pools

Commercial can be rebutted if clear words are used to show no legal intent

Kleinwort v Malaysian Mining

Commercial can be rebutted if word used aren't clear enough to amount to a specific promise and only a moral obligation

Edwards v Skyways

The burden of proof is on the party seeking to rebut but establishing no intent

Esso v Commissioners of Customs and Excise

An offer of a free gift to promote a business can be legally binding

McGowan v Radio Buxton

A prize offered through competition to promote a company is also intended legally binding

What is a halfway house agreement

Sandler v Reynolds - can be a half way house between commercial and social agreements. In these situations it is the party who is seeking to rely on the agreement who must prove intent

Snelling v Snelling

Social will be rebutted if the nature of agreement was commercial

Merritt v Merritt

Social can be rubutted if parties no longer act out of love because relationship has broken down or is expected to

Parker v Clarke

Social will be rebutted where parties have acted in reliance on the promise (i.e risked finincial security)

Simpkins v Paye

Courts will uphold gambling agreements if there is a clear promise to share. If money is exchanged then the agreement is likely binding

Wilson v Burnett

If there is evidence of parties intention then less likey to be social