ITCLR

Question 1

Domestic agreements

Answer 1

• presumption tha parties do not intend to be legally bound
• Balfour v Balfour - no ITCLR as were a marries couple when agreement was made.
• Jones v Padavatton - daughter hander right to stay in the house as not interact between her and mother.

Question 2

Rebutting Domestic/social presumtpion

Answer 2

• Merrit v Merrit -Position of separated couple is more akin to businessmen in approaching negotiating domestic affairs -> is intention.
• Simpkin’s v Pays - lodger was already in an existing contractual relationship with the family as he paid them rent -> is intention.
• Parer v Clark - they would not have sold their own house if they did not think they were entering into a legally binding agreement. This detrimental reliance is a strong indicator of intention.

Question 3

Commercial agreement

Answer 3

• Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd[2013] - employers could not rebut the presumption and were therefore liable to provide the promised multi-million -euro bonus pool.

Question 4

Rebuttal of Commercial presumption

Answer 4

• Rose & Frank Co.vJ. R. Crompton Bros(1925)- agreement binding in honour only as the parties agreed that it was not entered into as a formal and legal agreement
• Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corporation Bhd - not expressly rebutted, merely of comfort and of moral responsibility and did not have the meaning nor effect of creating a legal promise

Question 5

Rebutting presumtpions

Answer 5

• by evidence showing the parties intended something different
• In commercial - responsibity of person claiming there was no intention.
• In domestic - responsibility on person within to show intention.
• may be shown by express rebuttal, or not, break of relationship, detrimental reliance.