Intention to create legal relations (ICLR)

• social and domestic relationships family and friends- starting point is there is no ICLR- rebuttable presumption however as evidence can be presented against this
• Balfour V Balfour (1919)- husband promised to give allowance while he was abroad, they split, and he didn't pay any ICLR as a domestic relationship- evaluation point- rights to women at this time may have affected verdict
• Jones V Padavatton (1969)- mother promise, purely domestic (mother to child)
• there is evidence that there can be an ICLR where:

  factors in the time of agreement

  formality- the fact that its written down is good evidence of wanting it to be a contract
• Evidence of ICLR:

  Merrit V Merrit (1970)- husband promised to give house if she payed remainder of mortgage and then he didn’t, difference is that when agreement was made they were separate, more evidence that they wanted to rely on this promise due to separation and trying to sort their lives out.

   
• Evidence of ICLR:

  Darke V Strout- wrote in letter everything he was going to pay, he didn’t, she sued, despite being domestic agreement there was timing after they had split, formal agreement was written down with clear terms that were serious e.g., nursery fees and car insurance (good evidence of an IC legal relations).
• Evidence of ICLR:

  Julian V Furby- parent to child relationship no ICLR decorating daughters house a loving father action can’t expect daughter and son in law to pay but can expect them to contribute to the materials, court split it element of no ICLR (NO evidence)loving father to daughter but element of ICLR with promise to pay for materials is enforceable. (Evidence)
• Always say with domestic that there is none except Darke and Strout exceptions:

  When was agreement made, how serious, how certain are the terms, any reliance on the terms, how formal was it (written).
• Evidence of ICLR:

  Parker V Clark- Relied on promise, sold their own house (evidence they did intent on it being bound), despite social agreement/ relationship.
• Evidence of ICLR

  Simpkins and Pays- lottery ticket, lodger contributed payed for his ticket.
• Business and commercial agreements- IS ICLR unless we can prove otherwise- more difficult to prove.

  McGowan V Radio Buxton- car, toy, no hint it was toy, Buxton lost
• Can rebut through wording (gentleman’s agreement)- Jones V Vernon Pools- ‘this agreement is binding in honour only’/ gentleman’s agreement., ‘mere puff’- quote from case Weeks V Tybald, ‘subject to contract’- phrasing (needs to be phrased in problem question) not yet in a contract what is being said currently don’t intent to be binding still negotiating. 

   
• Weeks V Tybald (1605)-£100 to anyone who would marry his daughter, wasn’t an ICLR was merely to entice suitors, no intention to be a commercial relationship.
• Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball- business relationship between you and customers (they tried to argue it was ‘mere puff’ it was clear they gained a huge commercial benefit from people buying their product intending to have a legal relation with those people.