Case law in law of contract

ROSE AND FRANK COMPANY V. CROMPTON AND BROS 1923 VOL 2 KB 206

In this case the parties were involved in buying and selling carbon paper between the United States and United Kingdom, the agreement concluded with a phrase “This is agreement is not enter into known as memorandum as a formal or legal agreement and each shall not be subject to legal jurisdiction in the law of the united States and United Kingdom but is only a definite expression of records of the purpose and intention of the parties concern to which they each honorably pledge themselves…”

The plaintiff sues the defendant for none delivered for goods as they agreed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the pledge and each was pointed not that the very purpose of the above phrase was to deliver the agreement legal validity; it could not therefore become the subject matter of the court action.
[09:03, 23/04/2015]

SOCIAL & DOMESTIC AGREEMENT

Where there is a domestic or social agreement the presumption is that legal relations are not intended. This does not however mean that in domestic or social agreement there can not be legally binding contract. All laws require that parties intend to create legal relation.

BALFOUR V. BALFOUR 1919 2 KB 571

In this case husband left his wife and when pressed by her to make arrangement for future, he agreed that if she would pay the outstanding mortgage in statement he would transfer the house into her name after all payment had been made. It was held that there was a binding contract since the presumption that legal relation are not intended doesn’t applied if the husband and wife are separated or they about separated. In case where the adults member of the family other than wife and husband share the financial arrangement they make may be intended to have contractual effect.
[09:03, 23/04/2015]

BI HADIJA KILUMANGA V. BIPERIS MISO [1982] TLR 266

The plaintiff and defendant   were close friend, they had exchanged various gifts and other valuables to consolidate their friendship. In the course of their dealings the plaintiff promised to buy a car and give it to the defendant. The plaintiff brought the car and shipped it in defendant’s name. The defendant incurred expenses in delivering the car from the port authorities. Before the plaintiff revoked her offer of a gift of the car.
Held
1.Gift is an act where by something is voluntarily transferred fron the true possesser to another person with full intention that the thing shall not return to the donor and with full intention on the party of the receiver to retain the things entirely as his own without restoring it to the give.
2.  For a gift to be valid there must be a going on the part of the donor and a taking on the part of the done. An intention to give and intention to take a delivery.
3  An incomplete gift can be revoked at any time before delivery order accordingly.
[09:06, 23/04/2015] Sauza:

CASE EDWARD V. SKYWAYS LTD 1964 VOL 1 WLR 348
In this case the plaintiff was declared redundant by his employer and he was promised a certain amount of money now because there  turn out to be  so many redundant, the employer refuse to pay the sum mention to the plaintiff and argued that there was no contractual reason why they should do so. They admitted that there was consideration because the plaintiff had relied and acted on their promise by choosing one of the two methods of payment. But they argued that there was no intention to create legal relation. The court found in favour of the plaintiff where he goes to jail since this was not a mere domestic agreement but was a business agreement.