ITCLR +/-

Question 1

+

Answer 1

1. Filters out trivial/domestic cases – Stops courts being overwhelmed by personal disputes (Balfour v Balfour).
2. Supports commercial certainty – Business deals are presumed binding (Edwards v Skyways), encouraging reliability.
3. Protects privacy in family life – Prevents legal intrusion into informal personal promises.
4. Flexible rebuttable presumptions – Courts can still enforce serious domestic agreements (Merritt v Merritt).

Question 2

-

Answer 2

1. Too rigid in domestic settings – Assumes no intention even where it’s clearly serious.
2. Presumptions can be unfair – Business parties can exclude liability easily (Jones v Vernons Pools).
3. Can Undermine Party Autonomy
   Parties may genuinely want to be bound, but ITCLR presumptions override their intentions.
4. Potentially redundant – Other doctrines like offer/acceptance and consideration already test seriousness.