Enforceability Criteria

  • Created by: phoebs.b
  • Created on: 30-03-18 18:11

Rose & Frank Co. v J.R. Crompton & Brothers Ltd (1925) - involved honour clauses, whereby the parties agree to exclude the courts and rely only on each other's honour. 

Jones v Vernon's Pools (1938) - involved honour clauses, whereby the parties agree to exclude the courts and rely only on each other's honour. 

Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks and Spencer plc (2001) - extreme uncertainty of terms so that there is no clear contract. There was a lack of certainty as to terms of an alleged 'implied' contract which confirmed the absence of intent to create legal relations despite a commercial relationship. 

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) - it may be necessary to distinguish an advertising gimmick (having no legal consequences) from a promise intended to be legally binding. This case involved a commercial agreement and not a mere advertising gimmick because the defendants had deposited £1000 with its bank to show its sincerity.

Bowerman v ABTA Ltd (1996) - would the promise be understood by the reasonable person as constituting a binding offer? If the defendants in this case wished to avoid the reasonable conclusion that its scheme of protection was intended to be legally binding it could have made this clear by the use of express words but it had failed to do so. 

Balfour v Balfour (1919) - in a domestic or social agreement, there is a presumption of no intention to create legal relations. Involved a husband's promise to his wife while they were living together (although they later separated) was not intended to be legally binding. Atkin LJ explained the policy reason for the unenforceability of promises in the domestic or social context as the avoidance of the opening of the floodgates and the nature of such agreements as informal. 

Parker v Clark (1960) - agreement between relatives with detailed terms to show certainty of terms and a strong reliance on the promise. 

Jones v Padavatton (1969) - a mother and daughters agreement for funding for the bar exams showed the evidence for reliance on the promise, but no certainty of terms in the agreement (and there was a question about the duration)

Merritt v Merritt (1970) - the presumption of there being no intention to create legal relations can be rebutted if the promises in the agreement are made when the parties have decided to separate. (Note: This can be compared to Balfour v Balfour (1919)).

Gould v Gould (1970) - the promise must be sufficiently certain; for 'as long as I can manage it' was found to not be sufficiently certain. 

Snelling v John G. Snelling Ltd (1973) - three brothers ran a company, but the nature of the contract was a commercial one, so the presumption applied to commercial contracts was used (the presumption that the parties intended to be legally bound). 

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) - The plaintiffs acquired shares in the Fu Chip company. The defendants were majority shareholders who were concerned


No comments have yet been made