ITCLR
-H supported W while overseas with work.
-Their relationship worsened and H stopped paying.
-Court held the agreement was purely domestic and had no ITCLR.
Balfour v Balfour
-Husband promised to transfer the house to wife.
-It was said there was no ITCLR
-No appeal acceptance as the couples separated had full ITCLR.
Merritt v Merrit
D and S cohabited in the joint family home with their 2 children. The relationship broke down and the father left the family home for good, he made ad hoc payments of child support/ maintenance. The court argued this was not a separation agreement but as a child maintenance agreement, and that the terms of the agreement itself suggest due formality and the creation of legal rights and obligations therefore the agreement was enforceable.
Darke v Strout
Mother offered for her daughter to stay and maintain while she studied for the bar exam. Mother appealed and won as the daughter had no ITCLR and was evicted.
Jones v Padavatton
-Father paid for material to plaster his daughter and son-in-law's house.
-When they split, he sued for the material costs and labour.
-Agreed that the material cost should be paid but not labour.
Julian v Furby
A gran, grand-daughter and their lodger entered a competition each week, agreeing they would share any winnings. When they won £750, the lodger sued for their share. The defence argued it was a domestic arrangement so there was no intention to create legal relations, but the court held they were bound and had to pay.
Simpkin v Pays
-Young and old couples get into a dispute about eviction when the couples get into an argument.
-Court held that they had to give the house after they die as by giving up their security it was the same as having ITCLR.
Parker v Clarke
-Bingo attended by two women had an extra prize of £1107 that was not seen to be covered by the agreement.
-The court held that the woman had ITCLR and that all the money made had to be split, as stated by the agreement.
Peck v Lateu
-The court found no ITCLR as a “Bare-bones” account of the events was not enough to justify the sharing of the third person's winnings, despite what the other two people heard.
Wilson v Burnett
-Two men died due to negligence and the wife tried to claim.
-The claim was unsuccessful as no parties had intended to say that there was legal obligation and had no ITCLR.
Coward v Motor Insurers’ Bureau
-An appeal was allowed as it was held the actions of the driver went far beyond his social kindness creating legal relations.
Albert v MIB
-Woman is given a toy instead of an actual car.
-She sued for £8000
-Court held they were legally bound to pay and gave her the prize.
McGowan v Radio Buxton
-Offered a world cup coin for every four gallons of fuel bought by consumers.
-They are liable as they have to pay for the coin
-Court held that it was a commercial agreement and had created a contract, meaning that tax was payable by esso.
Esso v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
-Questions arose whether coupons created legally binding contracts.
-Court held that it was "Binding in terms of honour" but it "shall no rise to any legal relations"
Jones v Vernons Pools
-An exagerated claim will not have any value in court.
-£15 million if shares for Sports Direct go to £8/share.
-Mere puff
Weeks v Tybald
The courts dismissed this claim in its entirety and will give the damages presented by the claimants
Confetti Records v Warner Music