Jones V Padavatton (1969) :: No Contract

Jones v Padavatton [1969]
 Facts: A mother and daughter came to an arrangement whereby the mother agreed
to maintain her daughter if she agreed to study for the bar. The daughter
commenced her studies and the mother paid her an allowance. The arrangement
was later altered and the mother agreed to provide a house in which her daughter
could reside whilst she studied. Mother and daughter fell into dispute as to the
occupancy of the house, and the mother sought possession. It was held the
daughter was entitled to remain in possession and the mother appealed.
 Issue:
1. Was there an intention to create legal relations?
2. Was the agreement between parties legally binding?
b. Held: No contract.
1. Agreements between family members are not binding contracts because it
is presumed by law that parties to a social or domestic agreement do not
intend to create legal relations/obligations. The party wishing to enforce
such an agreement must rebut this presumption and prove that there existed
an intention to create legal relations. The mother had not intended to create
legal obligation. The daughter was distraught when her mother sued her
(this conduct proves she had never contemplated going to court to enforce
legal obligations).
2. Since there was no intention to create legal relations, there was no legally
binding contract. (Also: The terms of the agreement were too vague to be
considered a valid contract.)
b. Applied: Balfour v Balfour
Extra: Blue v Ashley

[https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-media/general/can-pub-banter-give-rise-to-a-legally-
binding-agreement ]
Generally speaking, it is possible under English law to make a contract without any
formality, simply by word of mouth. The absence of a written record may make the existence
and terms of a contract harder to prove. Furthermore, because the value of a written record is
understood by anyone with business experience, its absence may – depending on the
circumstances – tend to suggest that no contract was in fact concluded. But those are matters
of proof: they are not legal requirements. The basic requirements of a contract are that: (i) the
parties have reached an agreement, which (ii) is intended to be legally binding, (iii) is
supported by consideration, and (iv) is sufficiently certain and complete to be enforceable.
Acceptance may be by words or conduct. Typically, acceptance involves promising to do

something but in one kind of contract known as a “unilateral contract”, where the offer made
by A is to reward someone for doing something, a contract is established when the recipient
of the offer (B) starts to perform the action required to earn the reward, even though B does
not promise A to do anything. The example of a “unilateral contract” taught to all first year
law students is an offer by A to pay B £100 if B walks from London to York. B is not obliged
to walk to York, but if B sets out on the journey, A’s offer becomes contractually binding.
There can be circumstances in which a person uses the language of offer without expressing a
genuine willingness to be bound. For example, if someone says at a party “I will give you a
million pounds, if you can speak for a minute on [a random subject] without hesitation,
deviation or repetition”, this is unlikely to be interpreted as an offer despite the literal words
used. That is because it is unlikely that anyone would reasonably have thought that the words
were meant seriously. Certainty and Intention to Create Legal Relations 81 In such
circumstances the words uttered would not be capable of creating any obligation, even a
purely moral obligation, let alone one that is legally enforceable.
Even when a person makes a real offer which is accepted, it does not necessarily follow that
a legally enforceable contract is created. It is a further requirement of such a contract that the
offer, and the agreement resulting from its acceptance, must be intended to create legal rights
and obligations which are enforceable in the courts, and not merely moral obligations.
Factors which may tend to show that an agreement was not intended to be legally
binding include the fact that it was made in a social context, the fact that it was
expressed in vague language and the fact that the promissory statement was made in
anger or jest.
Vagueness in what is said or omission of important terms may be a ground for concluding
that no agreement has been reached at all or for concluding that, although an agreement has
been reached, it is not intended to be legally binding. But certainty and completeness of terms
is also an independent requirement of a contract. Thus, even where it is apparent that the
parties have made an agreement which is intended to be legally binding, the court may
conclude that the agreement is too uncertain or incomplete to be enforceable – for example,
because it lacks an essential term which the court cannot supply for the parties.

Jones V Padavatton (1969) :: No Contract

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jones V Padavatton (1969) :: No Contract

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jones V Padavatton (1969) :: No Contract

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jones v Padavatton [1969]

Extra: Blue v Ashley

Acceptance may be by words or conduct. Typically, acceptance involves promising to do

You might also like