- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Joel and Kerry are the son and daughter of Marion, Marion has asked them to clean their rooms, ready for their grandparents’ visit, She said she would give them each £10 for doing so.
Which TWO of the following statements are true?
A. Domestic or family arrangements are usually informal and so the court will be willing to overlook the
usual requirements for the formation of a contract
B. This arrangement cannot amount to a contractual agreement because it is not made in a
commercial context
C. Joel, Kerry and Marion do not have the requisite intention to create legal relations
D. There is a lack of mutuality about this arrangement, which means that it will be unenforceable as a
contractKnow A is correct, thought B is too. But it’s not and D is correct instead. Please explain why?
I agree that A is correct so no qualms about that being one of the two correct statements.
Contracts don’t have to be commercial – so B is incorrect.
A lack of mutuality is where one of the party has an unfair excess influence over the other party. In this case, I would propose that there IS a mutuality. Clean your rooms and get £10.
I would suggest that the answer should be C. Family contract – Mum trying to bribe untidy children to clean their mess. This isn’t a case of intention to create legal relations.
OK?
I’m going for A and C
It appears I made a mistake sorry C and D are correct answers. I understand C is correct.
As to A I eliminated it, family agreements are presumed to have no intention to create legal relations unless rebutted so wouldn’t be a contract in the first place for the court to overlook the formal requirements!
As for D, now. I’m gonna paste the answer here
Agreements between family members are difficult to understand as contractually binding, owing to the motive behind the actions undertaken or promise made. This looks very much like a standard family understanding that when grandparents visit, Marion likes the house to be tidy.
Can you explain now why is it D?We’re in the realms of an hypothetical court case and discussing whether the court would be prepared to overlook the normal formalities of a valid contract.
Come on!
Who is bringing this case – and why? Is it mom because the children refused to clean their rooms? Is it the children because mum is now refusing to pay? I have inferred that the case is in court and therefore the court would be prepared to overlook …
So I’m sticking with A.
I disagree with D because there IS a mutuality.
In summary, my answer would be (still) A and C.
Sorry!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.