Answering Legal Problems
This paper looks at the way of approaching a legal problem. We considered the problem :
Peter is a student of sociology. In order to encourage him to work harder his parents say that they will pay him £100 if he passes his A level in Sociology. For the same reason his employer offers a similar sum, if Peter were to pass his examination. Dennis, the sociology lecturer; also attempts to motivate Peter with an offer of £100 if he passes his examination.
Peter responds a works hard. His initial reward is a pass at the highest grade in his åA¼ level. His delight at passing the examination is tempered by the fact that his parents, employer and Dennis all refuse to pay him the £100
Your task is to advise Peter if he is likely to obtain the various monies.
I suggest that the problem is approached in this manner.
1 We need to establish what areas of law are involved. First it is contract law with an
emphasis on intent to create legal relations.
2 Having established the area of law, and having satisfied ourselves, by re-reading the question that we are in the right area we must recall the precedents which we need to consider. These precedents are usually case law which sometimes supports or is supported by statute.
3 The cases we need to consider are Balfour v Balfour 1919, Merritt v Merritt 1970, Simpkin v Pays 1955, Ford v AUEW 1969.
4 These cases and the åstories¼ that accompany them will give us some rich illustrations to test the general rules of law relating to intent to create legal relations. These rules are :
Domestic or social agreements are not usually legally binding. Business agreements are legally binding unless it is stated that the agreement will not be legally binding as in Ford v AUEW 1969. Kleinwort Benson v MMM 1969
5 We now should have the legal principles and cases to analyse each of the three situations in turn.
6 In relation to the promise from the parent, the rule of law that a domestic or social agreement is not usually binding and a look at Balfour, Merritt and Simpkin will provide us with much evidence to suggest that the parent promise was not intended to be legally binding. Judges attempt to discover intent from the evidence given by both sides as we shall see later in Jones v Padavatton 1969.
7 We can now look at the position of the employer and whether that promise is binding. The rule of law is clear. A business arrangement is legally binding unless a clause or statement to the opposite is made. An employment contract is a business agreement. We can now look at the precedents. Merritt and Simpkin help even though they are exceptions to the rule that domestic or social agreements are not normally legally binding. Ford is probably a stronger precedent. As we have no evidence that Peter¼s employer ever made a statement denying legal liability when the agreement was made it seems clear that in this instance there was a presumption to create legal relations.
8 Dennis is the problem. The issues here are most uncertain and therefore most interesting. We can test the water by looking at the precedents such as Balfour, Merritt, Simpkin and Ford. On these cases alone we could go either way - for peter or for Dennis. We need to dig deeper and look at the law to see what precedents we can find concerning the state of mind at the time the agreement was made.
9 Jones v Padavatton 1969 is a good starting point. We need to look at the circumstances of this case where a mother offered her daughter a monthly payment in order to study law. (See Beale, Bishop and Furmston (1990) Contract : Cases and Materials London, Butterworth pages 156-157.) After considering the facts in Jones we may feel that they do not particularly help us.
10 We can now look at Coward v Motor Insurers¼ Bureau 1962 where a motor cyclist and his pillion passenger were killed in an accident. In attempting to determine whether there was intent Upjohn LJ said :
If the question had been posed to Coward or Cole (the motor cyclist and passenger) åDid you intend to enter into a legal relationship? each would probably have answered åI never gave it a thought¼.
11 In Coward the Court of Appeal felt that there needed to be a contract before intent could be assumed. This was rejected by a majority in Albert v Motor Insurers¼ Bureau 1971 HL. In this case the court had to decide if there was a legal intent where a man regularly gave neighbours and others a lift to work, sometimes for payment in money or in kind. The importance of this case was that the majority in the Lords felt that there need not be a prior contract for there to be legal intent.
12 What an examination of these precedents show is that one must look to the circumstances and what was in the mind of Peter and Dennis when the agreement was struck. Was it a social agreement or a legal agreement.
13 As the facts are stated a court could go either way. We can find good precedent for both arguments. In all probability this case would depend on the relationship between Dennis and Peter and the class. Was it social act of encouragement? or one that was of legal intent? All we can do is state the facts, the precedents, our reasons for selecting certain precedents over others etc.
14 This problem shows the learning value of what seems a simple problem. It shows the value of going over the problem and our initial answers with a good law text. In this example I have used Beale, Bishop and Furmston which is always available in the College of Further Education library. The same retrospective analysis can be made to many of the problems we have considered. This approach will provide you with a deeper understanding of the law concerning that topic. It will also allow you to consider and discuss alternatives and to demonstrate to the examiner a sound understanding of the law. It can only help prepare for the examination.
Prepared by Stephen John B Sc(Econ); MSc; M Ed; M Phil; FIPD
1994
Return to Law Contents