Problems may arise in this context between other family members, such as
parent and child, as in the following case.
The following two cases involved other family relationships, and in both
cases the presumption was rebutted.
Legal intent 69Lord Denning explained the decision in Merritt v Merritt in this way,In all these cases the court does not try to discover the intention
by looking into the minds of the parties. It looks at the situation
in which they were placed and asks itself: Would reasonable
people regard this agreement as intended to be legally binding?
Lord Denning is really saying that looking on from the outside, as
the court is when making a judgment, it would be difficult to decide
whether the parties intended in their minds that what they said should
be legally binding. In addition there is often very little concrete
evidence about what the parties intended, so that is why the court
makes a presumption that in these situations the parties do not have
legal intent.
However, in Merritt v Merritt, the husband and wife were legally
separated, and the court therefore saw enough in that fact to
differentiate between this case and Balfour v Balfour. Another factor
could well have been changes in society during the period 1919 to
1970, making it more commonplace for a husband and wife to make
these arrangements.
In the case of Darke v Strout (2003) it was held that the formality of
a letter of agreement to child maintenance was enough to rebut the
presumption between family members.Why do you think that the outcome of Merritt v Merrittwas different from
Balfour.Jones v Padvatton (1969)
A mother provided a house for her daughter whilst she was studying for
her bar exams. The Court of Appeal later held that the agreement to let
her continue there was a family arrangement and not legally binding,
so refused to allow reprossession by the mother.
This contrasts with the decision in Webb v Webb (1997) where a
father was held to have intended legal relations in handing over a flat
to his son, after the son ‘sided’ with his estranged wife.