ITCLR Evaluation

• Why Do We Have Rules and Presumptions?

  • purpose of this requirement of a contract is to sift out which are not appropriate for court action
  • moral duty to honour a casual agreement, no legal duty
  • parties do not intend to be legally bound, law seeks to mirror parties wishes
• Domestic

  • logical presumption, ridiculous if family members agreements enforced by courts, non-lawyers may find it difficult to imagine mother-daughter suing each other
  • Jones v Padavatton - Dankwerts LJ - 'really deplorable situation'
  • impractical - court to intervene in every agreement between husband and wife; Balfour v Balfour
  • fair - agreement was written, intention to be bound, inequitable for husband to go back on agreement; Merritt v Merritt
• Social

  • May LJ - claimants bare bones account of what they say agreed at work place, scarcely stands as an agreement binding and enforceable in law, not clear or certain; Wilson v Burnett
  • can be rebutted - fair when parties have exchanged money, likely to believe ITCLR, payment of money makes it more akin to a commercial agreement; Simkins v Pays
• Overlap Between Domestic & Social Into Commercial

  • unclear as to when they may turn into commercial agreements if they set up a business, 'halfway house'; Sadler v Reynolds
  • likely to turn commercial unless wording is clear there is no ITCLR; Snelling v Snelling
  • all parties need to be aware, grey area
• Commercial

  • fair, assumed parties intended for agreement to have legal consequences
  • redundancy agreement enforced despite ex gratia; Edwards v Skyways
  • fair, business gaining a 'financial gain/benefit' from promotion, bound by terms; Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
  • can be harsh, strong presumption in favour of being bound
  • fair - specifically stated it was not binding; Jones v Vernon Pools
  • honourable pledge clause
  • confetti records - 'subject to contract' acts as an exception to general rule of ITCLR; Rose and Frank