Contract Law Cases Quiz

The parties involved in a contract must have a shared understanding that their agreement should create legal obligations.

When parties agree on something in a personal or family context, the law usually presumes they are NOT making a legally binding agreement.

In business deals, the law assumes that parties intend their agreement to be legally enforceable.

The presumption that parties in social or domestic agreements do NOT intend to be legally bound can be challenged with evidence.

A statement that doesn't intend to be legally binding (like an advertisement) may lead to a contract in the future.

Both ITT and ITCLR involve statements without legal commitment, BUT ITT implies a potential future contract.

A contract without ITCLR is not legally enforceable and cannot be pursued in court.

Courts use presumptions like those for social/domestic or commercial agreements to determine ITCLR.

Agreements made within a family or household, typically involving spouses or family members. These agreements are often presumed NOT to be intended to create legal relations.

A case that established the presumption that parties to a domestic agreement do NOT intend to create legal relations.

A case that REBUTTED the presumption of NO ITCLR in domestic agreements. The courts found that the parties intended to create legal relations due to the formal nature of the agreement and the clear understanding around the terms.

This principle acknowledges that agreements between family members are generally not binding. For example, a parent promising to give their child a gift.

A case that highlighted the presumption against enforceable agreements in family situations. The mother's promise to pay her daughter's rent was deemed not to be intended to be legally binding.

A potential consequence of finding ITCLR in all domestic agreements. This would mean that many agreements, even casual ones, could be subject to legal disputes, significantly increasing the number of legal cases.

ITCLR in domestic situations is not seen as appropriate because they are generally considered personal and private matters.

A legal principle that presumes parties in domestic or social settings don't intend to create legally binding agreements.

This doctrine is based on the idea that the law shouldn't interfere with personal relationships.

The presumption that family agreements are not legally binding can be overturned if there's strong evidence to the contrary.

Courts will consider the context in which an agreement was made - business-like or purely personal.

When one party relies on a promise and acts to their detriment, it strengthens the argument for legal relations.

When couples separate (or are about to) agreements made are more likely to be legally binding, because they're seeking to 'bargain' rather than rely on 'honor'.

If an agreement was mutual, made with a clear understanding of its terms, and resulted in one party acting to their detriment, it's more likely to be legally binding.

Courts will consider if the agreement was made in a formal setting, with clear terms, and deliberate consideration of legal consequences.

A clause in a contract that states the agreement is not legally binding, but rather a matter of honor.

A statement made during negotiations that explicitly says the agreement is not binding until a formal contract is signed.

A legal principle that says courts will interpret ambiguous contracts in a way that suggests a clear intention to create legal relations.

An advertisement that offers a reward or promise, even if it is not legally binding, can be considered a contract if it shows a clear intention to create legal relations.

When parties agree on something in a personal or family context, the law usually presumes they are not making a legally binding agreement.

Courts look at if parties agree on clear terms. In Vaughan v Vaughan, a husband promised his wife to stay in the matrimonial home, BUT it wasn't legally binding because they didn't set a time limit or terms of her stay.

In commercial agreements like business deals, there's a presumption that parties INTEND to be legally bound. This means they want their agreement to be enforceable.

Even if there is a strong presumption of ITCLR in commercial agreements, this can be challenged with clear evidence showing the parties didn't intend to be bound legally. Like in 'mere puffs' which are promises not meant to be taken seriously.

In situations like family and social arrangements, there is a general presumption that parties DON'T intend their agreements to be legally binding. Like a promise to help a friend move, unless it's formal.

This refers to the situation where the presumption of ITCLR in social or domestic agreements can be overturned if there is clear evidence that the parties did intend to be legally bound by their agreement.

This is a strong statement that underscores the importance of keeping your word in commercial dealings. Courts are hesitant to let parties escape obligations based on technical loopholes or tricks.