CHAR_A01.PDF, page 1-18 @ Normalize ( CHAR_A01.QXD )

• Discuss the principles outlined in the answer to question 3 and form a
  conclusion about whether the time has come to review the doctrine.

Chapter 4: Legal intent

Question 1

Introduce very briefly the need for legal intent as a formation requirement,

along with agreement and consideration.

• Stress the importance of legal intent, to distinguish between various
  agreements, some of which may give rise to legal obligation, and others
  which do not.


• There are three incidents here: a group of friends providing food and
  drink for a social occasion, the promotional campaign with ‘free’
  desserts, and the entry into the pools competition.


• The food and drink: Explain the presumption concerning social and
  domestic arrangements, and how it may be rebutted (unlikely here):
  various cases, but Jones v Padvattan and Simpkin v Pays are
  particularly relevant. Those involved here are just friends (there was a
  lodger in Simpkin). Note the extension of domestic arrangements to
  friends, rather than strict family relationships – see Buckpitt v Oates.


• The ‘free’ dessert: Refer to Chapter 4 regarding the situation in
  commercial situations, and use the Esso case to show the need for it in
  protecting the consumer.


• The pools entry: explain the presumption in commercial situations, and
  the honourable pledge clause as a way of rebutting this. Use a pools case,
  like Jones v Vernons. Consider the fairness of this, and whether the Unfair
  Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1994 may now apply.

Question 2

Introduce very briefly the need for legal intent as a formation requirement,

along with agreement and consideration.

• Stress the importance of legal intent, to distinguish between various
  agreements, some of which may give rise to legal obligation, and others
  which do not.


• There are two incidents here, one set in a commercial context and one
  in a social context.


• Explain the presumption in a commercial context, then apply this to
  Franco and Grandstore – Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, Esso v CCE.


• Consider whether the presumption can be rebutted.


• Discuss the idea of the presumption in social and domestic situations,
  and the extension of this to friends – Merritt v Merritt, Jones v
  Padvatton, Buckpitt v Oates.

Answers guide 297

CHAR_Z01.QXD 14/9/07 10:01 Page 297