LAW121 PRACTICAL CONTRACT LAW SEMINAR
PREPARATION (WEEK 2)
Question 1: He is liable to pay the money he promised to Arnold;
Answer: Starting by his age we could easily understand that Arnold is a minor.
He cannot have the capacity to join in a contract while his age is 15, and that is
something that is not beneficial to him. The second thing we can understand is
that the type of contract is between a father and his son. Looking for the
intension in this contract we can come to conclude that it is a domestic
agreement, and according to this, the presumption is rebuttable.
Question 2: He is liable to pay for Kristine’s dress and meal at Titan’s restaurant;
Answer: Dave is not liable to pay for Kristine’s dress and meal while is a
domestic agreement and there is no intension, the presumption is
rebuttable, as the case Balfour v Balfour (1919).
Question 3: He is entitled to enforce his arrangement with Kristine to buy her
share of the house for £50,000;
Answer: In this case, it should be a priority to mention the case Merrit v Merrit
(1969). Where a night in Mr. Merrit's car, they decided that he would pay his
wife 40£ a month, out of which she was to pay the outstanding mortgage
payments on their house; he would transfer the house to his sole ownership
when the mortgage was paid off. Mrs. Merrit then refused to get out of the car
until her husband put the agreement in writing. Following this case, we can
undoubtedly understand that Mr. Dave is entitled to enforce his arrangement
with Kristine to buy her share of the house for £50,000. The pieces of evidence
on this case are given by Lord Denning in Balfour v Balfour (1919), were
pointed out that an agreement between husband and wife was 'a family
arrangement', was not valid where the parties had separated or were about to
do so. In such circumstances, the parties ' do not rely on honourable
understandings', but 'bargain keenly', and it could be safely presumed that any
agreement between them was intended to be legally binding.
Question 4:
He is entitled to the money SuperCycles said they would pay him under their written
agreement;
Answer: In terms of general rules of commercial or business relations, there is
a presumption or intention to be legally binding. Otherwise, in terms of
exception, the presumption is rebuttable. in Kleinwort Benson Ltd V Malaysia
Mining Corporation Bhd in the year 1989. With this case in mind, Mr. Dave can
not take legal action against SuperCycles while he was signed the contract. The
evidence on this is Clause 33 which provides that “the parties to this
agreement hereby confirm that signature does not confer any legal obligations
on either party and that this agreement shall rely on the honourable intentions
of the parties only”.
-Petros Tsitsios-