Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
Upload
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any modules yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

Cases

Cases
Module

A Critical Introduction to Law (LW323)

9 Documents
Students shared 9 documents in this course
Academic year: 2019/2020
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
University of Kent

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Related Studylists

Law of Contract

Preview text

Case Classes – Reading

Simpkins v Pays (1955)

Facts

Ms. Simpkins was a paying boarder at Ms. Pays house, who lived with her granddaughter. Ms. Simpkins habitually entered into newspaper competitions. Concerning one weekly Sunday newspaper competition, the three agreed that Ms. Simpkins would fill in a weekly coupon, with each person making three forecasts, yet submitting them in Ms. Pays name, and divide the prize in the event of winning. A forecast made by Ms. Pays’ granddaughter in one of the coupons submitted won a prize of £750 under Ms. Pays name. Ms. Pays refused to distribute the prize and Ms. Simpkins claimed for one-third of the prize under their agreement.

Issue

The question arose as to whether there was an intention to create legal relations in the informal arrangement between the Parties so as to constitute a legal agreement to distribute the shares.

Judgment

The Court held that, irrespective of the familial relations and the informal context, there was mutuality in the arrangement between the Parties, by which they agreed to the manner of the submission of the forecast in Ms. Pays name on a weekly basis and that, if there was a success, all three persons would share the prize money equally. Despite the domestic context, the filling out of the coupon by Ms. Simpkins was not a voluntary service to Ms. Pays but rather pursuant to an agreement by which each Party had shares in the result, thus showing an intention to create legal relations. The Court held that the mutual arrangement, no matter how informal, constituted a legally-binding agreement to divide the shares in thirds.

Tanner v Tanner (1975)

Facts

The parties were unmarried and had twin daughters. Mr Tanner purchased a house for the twins and their mother to live in. His partner gave up her protected tenancy on a flat and moved into the house with her children. Three years later Mr Tanner successfully obtained an order for possession and the mother and the twins were re-housed by the local authority. The mother appealed against the order for possession.

Issues

The mother argued she had a contractual license in the premises which could not be terminated whilst the children were of school age. She claimed the house was intended to be for herself and the children until they left school. She had given up her protected tenancy in reliance on her holding contractual rights in the house. In the alternative, she claimed a trust could be inferred whereby she and her children acquired a beneficial interest in the

home. Mr Tanner claimed the arrangement amounted to a bare license which was terminable at will.

Judgment

The agreement was held to be a contractual license which could not be terminated for so long as the twins were of school age, and the accommodation was reasonably required. Even though there was no express agreement to that effect, the court inferred such a contract from the surrounding circumstances. The contractual license was specifically enforceable on her behalf. The possession order should not have been made and the mother was entitled to damages in the sum of £2,000.

Wilson v Burnett

Facts

On 20 January 2005 at a bingo hall in Plymouth, a ticket or book purchased and held by Tania Burnett (the defendant) won not only a local prize of £153 but a huge national bingo prize of £101,211. Tania was there that night playing bingo with two friends with whom she worked, and they were Stacy Wilson and Abigail Stacey. They claimed in County Court proceedings tried at Exeter on 13 December 2006 that the three girls had made a binding oral agreement, enforceable in law, that they would share any winnings equally. So Stacy and Abigail each claimed £33,736 from Tania as their contractual share of the national prize.

Issues

Was the oral agreement legally binding?

Judgment

The judge heard evidence which he decided was in conflict on all material matters. He held, with reference to a Scottish case, that although a promise or agreement made in a purely social context would not in most cases be regarded as legally binding, it was essential to look at the particular facts to discover whether they revealed an intention to conclude a contract. That, of course, is elementary law. The case was appealed, but it was dismissed

Stilk v Myrick (1809)

Facts

A return voyage between London and the Baltics was in peril when two of the crew abandoned the ship. The seamen were due to receive wages of £5 per month during the voyage. The captain offered the remaining crew an equally divided share of the deserted seamen's salary if they could return sail the ship to London with reduced crew. The ship was returned to London by the remaining seamen however, the additional payment was not made.

Issues

what he was already bound to do. The appellants relied on Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 where it was held that performance of an existing duty was not good consideration.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held that the doctrine in Stilk v Myrick had been refined since then. Gildwell LJ said a promise to make bonus payments to complete work on time was enforceable if the promisor obtained a practical benefit and the promise was not given under duress of by fraud. It was the appellants’ own idea to offer the extra payment. Therefore, there was no duress. The appellants also gained a practical benefit by avoiding the penalty clause. Russel LJ said (at 19) that the court would take

‘a pragmatic approach to the true relationship between the parties’.

Consequently, the promise for extra pay was enforceable.

Was this document helpful?

Cases

Module: A Critical Introduction to Law (LW323)

9 Documents
Students shared 9 documents in this course

University: University of Kent

Was this document helpful?
Case Classes – Reading
Simpkins v Pays (1955)
Facts
Ms. Simpkins was a paying boarder at Ms. Pays house, who lived with her granddaughter.
Ms. Simpkins habitually entered into newspaper competitions. Concerning one weekly
Sunday newspaper competition, the three agreed that Ms. Simpkins would fill in a weekly
coupon, with each person making three forecasts, yet submitting them in Ms. Pays name,
and divide the prize in the event of winning. A forecast made by Ms. Pays’ granddaughter in
one of the coupons submitted won a prize of £750 under Ms. Pays name. Ms. Pays refused
to distribute the prize and Ms. Simpkins claimed for one-third of the prize under their
agreement.
Issue
The question arose as to whether there was an intention to create legal relations in the
informal arrangement between the Parties so as to constitute a legal agreement to distribute
the shares.
Judgment
The Court held that, irrespective of the familial relations and the informal context, there was
mutuality in the arrangement between the Parties, by which they agreed to the manner of
the submission of the forecast in Ms. Pays name on a weekly basis and that, if there was a
success, all three persons would share the prize money equally. Despite the domestic
context, the filling out of the coupon by Ms. Simpkins was not a voluntary service to Ms.
Pays but rather pursuant to an agreement by which each Party had shares in the result,
thus showing an intention to create legal relations. The Court held that the mutual
arrangement, no matter how informal, constituted a legally-binding agreement to divide the
shares in thirds.
Tanner v Tanner (1975)
Facts
The parties were unmarried and had twin daughters. Mr Tanner purchased a house for the
twins and their mother to live in. His partner gave up her protected tenancy on a flat and
moved into the house with her children. Three years later Mr Tanner successfully obtained
an order for possession and the mother and the twins were re-housed by the local authority.
The mother appealed against the order for possession.
Issues
The mother argued she had a contractual license in the premises which could not be
terminated whilst the children were of school age. She claimed the house was intended to
be for herself and the children until they left school. She had given up her protected tenancy
in reliance on her holding contractual rights in the house. In the alternative, she claimed a
trust could be inferred whereby she and her children acquired a beneficial interest in the

Students also viewed

Related documents