CERTAINTY AND ITCLR
Lecture Notes
Elements of Contract Law
Law - Year One
, Certainty and Intention to Create Legal Relations (ITCLR) - Lecture Notes
PART 1: INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS (ITCLR)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS
This is the third formation element to form a valid contract.
General Rule:
Agreements will not be enforced unless the parties intended to create contractual
relations.
When does this rule not apply?
Mentorship/Apprenticeship Scheme
Edmonds v. Lawson [2000] QB 501 - This case involves a pupil barrister who was
not being paid. At that time, there were a few chambers which had took on unpaid
pupillages. The pupil sued requesting for a reasonable minimum wage.
Held: The court had concluded that this apprenticeship situation was not an ITCLR
situation as originally there was no expectation to be paid. It was not considered to
be a normal commercial agreement.
Social/Domestic Relations
In the case of agreements entered into in a domestic context the presumption is that
the parties did not intend to create legal relations.
Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 - This involves a married couple. Mr Balfour was
a civil engineer, and worked for the Government as the Director
of Irrigation in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Mrs Balfour was living with him. In August
1915, they both came back to England during Mr Balfour's leave. However, Mrs
Balfour had developed rheumatic arthritis. Her doctor advised her to stay in
England, because the Ceylon climate would be detrimental to her health. Mr
Balfour's boat was about to set sail, and he orally promised her £30 a month until
she came back to Ceylon. They drifted apart, and Mr Balfour wrote saying it was
better that they remain apart. In 1918, she obtained a divorce, a ‘decree nisi’. The
wife had ultimately sued Mr Balfour to keep up with the monthly £30 payments.
Held: The court disagreed because at the time of agreement, they were a happily
married couple. As a result, the general presumption as to how domestic relation
do not have ITCLR applied.
Significance: Establishes the presumption in domestic cases (between two family
members).
Jones v. Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 - A case involving a mother and daughter,
with the mother being Mrs Jones and the daughter being Mrs Padavatton. The
Lecture Notes
Elements of Contract Law
Law - Year One
, Certainty and Intention to Create Legal Relations (ITCLR) - Lecture Notes
PART 1: INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS (ITCLR)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS
This is the third formation element to form a valid contract.
General Rule:
Agreements will not be enforced unless the parties intended to create contractual
relations.
When does this rule not apply?
Mentorship/Apprenticeship Scheme
Edmonds v. Lawson [2000] QB 501 - This case involves a pupil barrister who was
not being paid. At that time, there were a few chambers which had took on unpaid
pupillages. The pupil sued requesting for a reasonable minimum wage.
Held: The court had concluded that this apprenticeship situation was not an ITCLR
situation as originally there was no expectation to be paid. It was not considered to
be a normal commercial agreement.
Social/Domestic Relations
In the case of agreements entered into in a domestic context the presumption is that
the parties did not intend to create legal relations.
Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 - This involves a married couple. Mr Balfour was
a civil engineer, and worked for the Government as the Director
of Irrigation in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Mrs Balfour was living with him. In August
1915, they both came back to England during Mr Balfour's leave. However, Mrs
Balfour had developed rheumatic arthritis. Her doctor advised her to stay in
England, because the Ceylon climate would be detrimental to her health. Mr
Balfour's boat was about to set sail, and he orally promised her £30 a month until
she came back to Ceylon. They drifted apart, and Mr Balfour wrote saying it was
better that they remain apart. In 1918, she obtained a divorce, a ‘decree nisi’. The
wife had ultimately sued Mr Balfour to keep up with the monthly £30 payments.
Held: The court disagreed because at the time of agreement, they were a happily
married couple. As a result, the general presumption as to how domestic relation
do not have ITCLR applied.
Significance: Establishes the presumption in domestic cases (between two family
members).
Jones v. Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 - A case involving a mother and daughter,
with the mother being Mrs Jones and the daughter being Mrs Padavatton. The
