In the next case Buckpitt v Oates, the plaintiff and defendant were merely
friends, but since the social circle has changed over a period of time, and
ease of transport and communications means that members of families are
much more widely spread now, it seems logical to extend the presumption
concerning domestic arrangements to friends as well as strict family. Of
course, this creates some uncertainty, and means that cases will depend
more on individual facts, in order to determine whether there is legal intent.
70 Contract law
Simpkin v Pays (1955)
The defendant, her grand-daughter, and the plaintiff (a lodger at the
defendant’s house), entered a fashion competition each week in a Sunday
paper, each filling in a line, and the entry being sent in under the defendant’s
name. They won a prize of £750 and the plaintiff sued for a third share as
agreed. Here, in contrast to the decision in Jones v Padvatton, it was held
that there was a legally binding contract, and the plaintiff was entitled to a
third share. The presence of the lodger, amongst other things, had the effect
of rebutting the presumption of this being merely a domestic matter.Parker v Clark (1960)
Two elderly couples were relatives. The Clarks lived in a large house
and invited the Parkers to share it, making very clear and detailed
arrangements about who was to pay various bills, and what would
happen to their property when they eventually died. Later a dispute
arose and the court held that the arrangement was binding, particularly
in view of the Parkers having taken the ‘drastic and irrevocable step’ of
selling their own home.Do you think that the Parkers and the Clarks would have expected this
agreement to be legally binding (think about the evidence – what arrangements
did they make?)Buckpitt v Oates (1968) The plaintiff and defendant were friends, both
17, and in the habit of riding in each other’s cars. The plaintiff sustained
an injury through the defendant’s negligence, on a journey where he had
paid the defendant ten shillings towards the petrol. Despite the
contribution to the fuel, it was held that this was a friendly arrangement,
or a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ to go on the trip. This gave rise to no legal
obligations or benefits, except those which the general law of the land
imposed or implied. Of course this particular situation would be different
today, since there is compulsory passenger insurance, but it is important
in showing a willingness of the court to extend the presumption beyond
the strict family, and also to reflect what the parties probably did intend.