Intention
This is the final requirement for the formation of a contract. Once offer and acceptance have taken place and an agreement is formed, there must be an intention to create legal relations for a contract to be legally binding.
Key Points
Intention to Create Legal Relations: Parties must intend to enter into a legally binding arrangement where the rights and obligations of the agreement are enforceable.
Not every agreement leads to a binding contract; moral obligations do not create legal duties. For example, agreements like meeting friends do not generally imply legal enforcement.
The law creates two presumptions to determine binding agreements:
In commercial/business agreements, there is a presumption that there is an intention to be bound.
In social/domestic agreements, it is presumed that there is no intention to be bound.
Business Agreements
Presumed Legally Binding:In general, business agreements are presumed to be legally binding.
Key Cases:
Edwards v Skyways (1969):
Facts: An airline pilot agreed to withdraw pension contributions for an ex gratia payment but later faced a breach as the company backed out.
Outcome: The court recognized it as a binding agreement due to its business context, affirming the presumption of legal relations.
Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1976):
Facts: Esso offered free coins with petrol purchases, leading to a tax question.
Outcome: The court held the promotion indicated a legal intention due to the commercial context.
Rebutting the Presumption of Business Agreements
The presumption of a binding business agreement can be rebutted by evidence such as statements indicating that the contract is only binding in honour.
Key Cases:
Jones v Vernons Pools:
The coupon stated it was "binding in honour only" which demonstrated no legal intent to be bound.
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v MMC:
A comfort letter from a parent company stating financial assurance failed in court, as it did not constitute a guarantee.
Summary of Business Agreements
Lead case confirming binding nature: Edwards v Skyways.
Exceptions:
Gentleman’s agreements or letters of comfort are not legally binding.
Promotions and consumer offers (like free gifts) do create legal relations as per Esso Petroleum Co v Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
Social and Domestic Agreements
In contrast, agreements in social or domestic contexts do not presume intent to create legal relations.
Key Cases:
Balfour v Balfour (1919):
The husband’s promise to pay his wife £30 per month during their amicable relationship was not enforceable after their marital issues arose.
Merritt v Merritt:
Post-separation agreement was enforced due to its written nature, countering the presumption.
Simpkins v Pays:
Agreement among family members to share lottery winnings was enforced because it involved a lodger, showing intent.
Rebuttal Evidence for Social Agreements
The presumption may be rebutted through written agreements, the occurrence of payment, or separation context.
Situational Rebuttals:
Parker v Clarke:
Agreement between couples to sell their house and live together was enforced due to the substantial change in financial security (selling the house).
Wilson v Burnett:
A verbal agreement to share bingo winnings lacked sufficient evidence to rebut the social presumption.
Evaluation
Advantages of Intention to Create Legal Relations
Ensures parties take their agreements seriously, promoting accountability.
Provides clarity in business transactions, fostering trust and transparency.
Protects parties by allowing legal recourse in case of breach.
Disadvantages of Intention to Create Legal Relations
May lead to legal disputes if parties' perceptions of 'intent' differ.
In social contexts, the lack of intent may undermine informal agreements.
Potential adverse effects on personal relationships due to legal scrutiny.
Role of Intention in Business Agreements
Presumed to be legally binding, ensuring that commercial dealings are enforceable.
Key Cases:
Edwards v Skyways (1969): Court affirmed the binding nature of the agreement within a business context.
Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1976): The court ruled that promotional offers indicated legal intent, reinforcing the presumption of binding agreements.
Rebutting Presumptions in Business
Statements indicating a contract is 'only binding in honour' can negate legal intent.
Key Cases:
Jones v Vernons Pools: Lack of intent shown through coupon terms.
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v MMC: A comfort letter was insufficient to establish a guarantee.
Role of Intention in Social and Domestic Agreements
Generally, no presumption of intent to create legal relations.
Key Cases:
Balfour v Balfour (1919): Illustrates the non-enforceability of personal promises.
Merritt v Merritt: A written separation agreement was enforced, contradicting social presumption.
Simpkins v Pays: Validity of family agreements demonstrated by external involvement (lodger).
Rebuttal Evidence for Social Agreements
Written agreements, payment occurrences, or specific contexts (e.g., separation) can rebut the lack of intent.
Situational Rebuttals:
Parker v Clarke: Enforced agreement due to financial changes impacting expectations.
Wilson v Burnett: Lack of evidence for social agreement highlights challenges in establishing intent.
Key Cases
Edwards v Skyways (1969)
Legal Principle: Affirmed the presumption of intention to create legal relations in business agreements. The court recognized a binding agreement in a commercial context where an airline pilot withdrew pension contributions for a promised payment.
Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1976)
Legal Principle: Established that promotions and consumer offers indicate legal intent to create binding agreements in a commercial setting, leading to enforceability.
Jones v Vernons Pools
Legal Principle: Demonstrated that a statement indicating a contract is "only binding in honour" negates legal intent, thereby rebutting the presumption of a binding agreement in business contexts.
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v MMC
Legal Principle: A comfort letter from a parent company lacks the necessary legal binding effect to constitute a guarantee, reinforcing the need for clear contractual intent.