ILR Evaluation

• P: contract not binding unless there’s intent to enter a legal relationship

  KT: fairness, flexibility, freedom of contract

  CA: difficult to prove the intention of parties

  C: challenging to achieve this flexibility
• Sadler v Reynolds


  P: burden is on whoever wants the agreement to be binding

  KT: flexibility

  CA: uncertainty

  C: different relationships, unclear where to start
• Jones v Padvatton


  P: good relationship supports not binding presumption

  KT: relationships change quickly

  CA: contract built on trust

  C: uncertain but fair
• Rose and Frank v Crompton


  P: words can indicate it is not binding

  KT: both sides freely agreed to terms

  CA: business agreements are binding

  C: freedom of contract but uncertain
• Jones v Vernon Pools


  P: words can indicate not binding

  KT: large inequality of bargaining power

  CA: courts upholding agreed terms

  C: freedom of contract vs unfairness
• Balfour v Balfour 


  P: man worked overseas and promised money periodically

  KT: outdated, sexist and unfair decision

  CA: the onus was on Mrs Balfour who didn’t rebut the presumption

  C: unfairness but certain
• Esso v CCE, Kleinwort Benson v MMC


  P: shouldn’t make false agreements, letter of comfort not binding

  KT: clear disconnect between the cases

  CA: Kleinwort Benson should have had lawyers check the letter

  C: unfairness, certainty
• P: social agreements are presumed to be not binding

  KT: certainty, no fear of legal repercussions

  CA: uncertainty

  C: certainty vs uncertainty