Skip to content
MarkSchemeMarkScheme
Sign up — no card

9084 · 3.1.3

Intention to create legal relations — practice questions

Practice and worked examples for 9084 Intention to create legal relations. Short previews only — attempt the full question in MarkScheme against the official scheme.

Worked example 1

Mr Balfour, working in Ceylon, agreed to pay his wife £30/month while she remained in England. They later separated and she sued for arrears. Advise on intention.

Show solution outline

1. Identify the Context & Presumption: This is a domestic agreement between a husband and wife who were living in amity when the agreement was made. Therefore, the law presumes there was no intention to create legal relations (Balfour v Balfour).

2. Analyse Facts for Rebuttal: The agreement was informal and made while the couple were married and living together (albeit temporarily apart due to work). There was no written contract, no hostility, and no evidence of detrimental reliance beyond the ordinary course of marriage. The facts align perfectly with the Balfour case itself.

3. Contrast with Rebuttal Cases: Unlike Merritt v Merritt, the parties were not separated or dealing 'at arm's length' when the promise was made.

4. Conclusion: There is no evidence to rebut the presumption. The agreement was a domestic arrangement, not a contract. Mrs Balfour's claim for the payments would fail.

Worked example 2

Priya promises her nephew, Sam, that if he gives up his £45,000/year job in Manchester and moves to Cambridge to help run her struggling bookshop, she will pay him a 'living allowance' and transfer 25% of the business to him after one year. Sam quits his job, sells his flat, and moves. After 6 months, they argue, and Priya tells him the arrangement is off. Sam has incurred £3,500 in moving costs and has been paid only £5,000. Advise Sam.

Show solution outline

1. Identify the Context & Presumption: This is a domestic agreement between an aunt and nephew. The starting presumption is that there is no intention to create legal relations (Balfour v Balfour).

2. Analyse Facts for Rebuttal: Sam must provide evidence to rebut this presumption. The key factor here is his significant detrimental reliance on Priya's promise, similar to Parker v Clark.

3. Calculate Detriment: We can quantify Sam's financial detriment to assess its significance:

  • Lost Salary (6 months): 0.5 years * £45,000/year = £22,500
  • Moving Costs: £3,500
  • Total Quantifiable Detriment: £22,500 + £3,500 = £26,000

4. Application of Law: Sam has suffered a substantial financial loss of £26,000 in just six months, in addition to the major life events of quitting his job and selling his home. This level of detriment is strong evidence that the arrangement was intended to be taken seriously and be legally binding. The commercial nature of the agreement (running a business, transferring shares) also points away from a simple family arrangement.

5. Conclusion: The presumption is very likely to be rebutted. The significant, quantifiable detrimental reliance and the business context of the agreement provide strong evidence of an intention to create legal relations. Sam can argue a binding contract was formed and could sue for his losses or enforcement of the promise.

Mark a 9084 question on this topicFull lessonOpen in course studio