ILR 3B

Question 1

What are the two types of agreement?

Answer 1

Social/domestic
Commercial

Question 2

What is the presumption in social agreements?

Answer 2

There is no ILR

Question 3

Why are social agreements presumed no intent?

Answer 3

They are made frequently and informally.
They take on the contract because of relationship not fear.

Question 4

What does rebutted mean?

Answer 4

Countered
(Opposed)

Question 5

Who has the burden of proof in social agreements?

Answer 5

The party that says there was intention.

Question 6

Is the ability to rebut the presumption in social agreements good or bad?

Answer 6

Bad as it can create uncertainty. It is impossible to predict when the presumption will be successfully rebutted.

Question 7

Was there intention in Balfour v Balfour?

Answer 7

No as it was verbal and unwritten.

Question 8

Was there intention in Merritt v Merritt?

Answer 8

Yes as it was agreed in writing and it was for property.

Question 9

What does Jones v Padvatton say?

Answer 9

Because the mum and daughter had a good relationship there was presumed no intent.

Question 10

Is Jones v Padvatton good or bad case law?

Answer 10

Bad because there is an uncertain concept of a ‘good relationship’. Just because they are close doesn’t mean they have no intent.

Question 11

What does Simpkin v Pays say?

Answer 11

There was intention because they did not have a close relationship, there was a contribution from all parties and an expectation to share winnings, and there was an argument that Pays was acting unfairly.

Question 12

What does Parker v Clarke say?

Answer 12

Although it was a young couple with older relatives there was intent as the elders promised to inherit and the couple were risking financial security on that expectation.

Question 13

What is the structure for a scenario with a social agreement in it?

Answer 13

Start explaining that there is a presumption no intent.
Use case law for the relationship.
Use case law for how it was made.
Use case law for financial involvement.

Question 14

What is the presumption for commercial agreements?

Answer 14

There is intent due to the reason for entering being different. (There is an expectation for LR)

Question 15

Why is it difficult to rebut commercial agreements?

Answer 15

They are written formally.
They are between business and customer (where there is inequality in bargaining power and courts do not want to allow businesses to escape).

Question 16

What does Esso v CCE say?

Answer 16

The HoL said there was intent on Esso’s behalf.
Because:
Esso gains a commercial benefit.
It was undesirable to let Esso get away by calling the coins ‘gifts’.

Question 17

What does Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros say?

Answer 17

Both parties agreed clearly that the contract was not legally binding due to its ‘honourable pledge’ clause. There was also similar bargaining power.

Question 18

What evaluation point could be linked to Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros?

Answer 18

Freedom of Contract.
Able to decide whether it is legally binding or not.

Question 19

What does Jones v Vernon’s Pools say?

Answer 19

There was no intent despite the difference in bargaining power due to the writing on the coupon being not legally binding.

Question 20

How can the decision in Jones v Vernon’s Pools be criticised in an evaluation?

Answer 20

It is unfair as it goes against bargaining power.
Many people don’t read the small print.
It is uncertain as a different decision could be made in a future case.

Question 21

What does Kleinwort Benson v MMC say?

Answer 21

The letter of comfort was not a contract as it had no legal effect.
If they intended to be legally bound they would have been guarantors not just send a letter of comfort.

Question 22

What does Edward v Skyways say?

Answer 22

If the words of an agreement are unclear on whether it is binding or just an honourable pledge then the court will go in favour of the presumption.

Question 23

What is the structure for a scenario with a commercial agreement in it?

Answer 23

Explain that there is a presumption of intent.
Use case law to explain if the agreement would benefit the company.
Use case law to show any evidence the parties had no intent.

Question 24

What does Sadler v Reynolds say?

Answer 24

If it is unclear what type of agreement we have, the person who wants it to be commercial has the responsibility to prove that.

Question 25

What evaluation point could be linked to Sadler v Reynolds?

Answer 25

Uncertainty because it is impossible to predict which type of agreement it will end up being.