LAWS211: W2 Intention 02/03

Please respond to the poll questions while waiting. Not a legal question, just gathering intuitions for class discussion later.

Updated tutorial times have been posted due to health and safety reasons.
- Three new tutorial sessions added to accommodate class sizes.
- Older tutorial time slots remain unchanged.
- Tutorial sign-ups will open tomorrow, Tuesday, at 10 AM and close Thursday around 2 PM. An email will be sent with details.
Class representatives are needed, particularly for level 200 papers.
- Important for communication between students and lecturers.
- Class representatives can relay concerns and facilitate communication.
- They can also assist lecturers in gauging class sentiment on various issues.
- If interested in the role, email Mark and me.

Fundamental Requirement for Contract Formation: Parties must intend for their agreement to be legally enforceable.
Legal Enforceability Presumptions from Fleming's Case:
- First Presumption: In agreements among businesses or in arm's length transactions, there is a presumption that parties intended to create legally binding obligations.
- Second Presumption: In private agreements among close family or trusted relationships, there is a presumption that parties did not intend to create legally enforceable relations.
Presumptions serve as a guide but can be rebutted by evidence, as seen in Fleming's case (agreement between domestic partners).
- Court concluded Mr. Beavers intended for his promise to be legally binding, overcoming the second presumption through evidence.

Voluntariness of Contractual Obligations: Respecting the voluntary nature is crucial as it distinguishes contract law from torts—where obligations are often involuntary.
Traditional answer to contract disputes: It depends on the parties' intent and what they agreed to.
Objective Principle: Courts assess parties' intent objectively, which means focusing on what a reasonable person would understand from the parties’ actions and words.

Case Overview: Agreement between Smith (seller) and Hughes (buyer) regarding a parcel of oats.
Facts:
- Hughes believed he was buying old oats needed for racehorses.
- Smith sold new oats, which were unsuitable for Hughes.
Procedural Posture: Case resulted from a jury trial with specific instructions from the judge regarding jury findings on intent and knowledge.
- Jury concluded in favor of Hughes, leading to Smith's appeal based on procedural grounds concerning the jury’s reasoning.
First Jury Instruction:
- Did the term "oaths" refer to the oats in the initial conversation?
- If so, Hughes is entitled to relief (for old oats).
Second Jury Instruction (Disputed):
- Did Smith know Hughes was contracting for old oats despite the word not being used?
- The outcome relies on ambiguity regarding whether there was mutual assent.