Scribd
Upload
128 views

The Second Case Is Jones V Padavatton (1969) - It Is An Agreement Between Parents and Children Where

The document summarizes 3 legal cases that establish the principle that agreements between family members are presumed not to create legal obligations. The first case involved a mother's agreement to support her daughter's education in exchange for living expenses, but the daughter later married without completing her studies. The court found no intent to form a legally binding contract. The second case similarly found that negotiations for a property sale between acquaintances did not constitute a legally binding contract. The third case addressed a dispute over property between adopted family members after the father remarried, and also found no intent to create legal obligations. All three cases demonstrate that domestic agreements are presumed not to establish enforceable contracts under law.

Uploaded by

Kelvin Yap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
128 views

The Second Case Is Jones V Padavatton (1969) - It Is An Agreement Between Parents and Children Where

The document summarizes 3 legal cases that establish the principle that agreements between family members are presumed not to create legal obligations. The first case involved a mother's agreement to support her daughter's education in exchange for living expenses, but the daughter later married without completing her studies. The court found no intent to form a legally binding contract. The second case similarly found that negotiations for a property sale between acquaintances did not constitute a legally binding contract. The third case addressed a dispute over property between adopted family members after the father remarried, and also found no intent to create legal obligations. All three cases demonstrate that domestic agreements are presumed not to establish enforceable contracts under law.

Uploaded by

Kelvin Yap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

The second case is Jones v Padavatton (1969)1.

It is an agreement between parents


and children where Mrs. Jones is Mrs. Padavatton’s mom. In this case, the plaintiff was staying in
Trinidad while her daughter had a well-paid secretarial job in Washington as she is working with the
Indian embassy. Mrs. Jones wanted his daughter to give up her job and continue the study for bar. She
promised to provide her daughter with $200 every month. With this, his daughter accepted the offer
and flew to England to study bar. A second agreement had been made where the plaintiff will buy a
house for her daughter to stay in and the rest of the rooms can be rent out in order to obtain income as
her daily expenses. However, her daughter gets married and did not finishes her study in England. Her
daughter even failed the bar examination. The plaintiff was angry and sought possession of the house.

Mrs. Padavatton takes the argument to the court where she claimed that there was a legally
binding contract between them and there is also an intention to create legal relations. She also stated
that there is consideration from her mother when her mother was paying $200 per month as
maintenance. Her daughter won the case on the first trial. However, Mrs. jones made an appeal. The
court of appeal held that neither agreement has intention to create legal relation. The court applied the
principle of Balfour v Balfour to the agreement where it was just an agreement between a mother and
a daughter. There is presumption that the family arrangement is based on mutual trust and no intention
to create legal relation. Hence, Mrs. Jones was entitled to claim back the house from her daughter.
Based on this case, it is able to understand that, social and domestic agreement including agreement
between parents and children or even agreement between family members and friends are presumed
that there is no intention to create legal relation. With this, in Angelina case, Angelina cannot insist on
Mark and Hans to pay the full amount of initial promises as both agreements are social and domestic
agreement.

The third case example is MN Guha Majumder v RE Donough. RE Donough owned a


property. The defendant made an advertisement for sale of this property where he accepts any written
offers to purchase the property. With this, the plaintiff went to visit the property in order to view it for
2 times. In between the two occasions, the plaintiff communicated with the defendant’s agent and it
was alleged that RE Donough accepted the offer and agreed to sell the house. On the second visit to
the property, the plaintiff asked the defendant on the mode of payment. However, the defendant
rejected it and mentioned that he already decided to sell his property to others. The plaintiff brought
the incident to the court and the court stated that there is no intention to create legal relationship
among them. The court also stated that it was just a negotiation form the beginning to the end. Hence,
it is clearly understood that social and domestic agreement is presumed that the agreement is not

1
intended to be legally binding. With this, Angelina cannot insist on Mark and Hans to pay the full
amount of initial promises as both agreements are social and domestic agreement.

The third case is Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo Hock Swee (1959). Based on this case, the
plaintiff lived in a house on a farm with this family including his first wife, 2 daughters, 5 adopted
sons and numerous grandchildren. They lived together on the premises in the farm. The family
prospered as those children which is old enough will worked in the farm. They also enlarged their
business in different carious business enterprises. In 1953, the plaintiff’s first wife passed away. Their
family quarreled frequently and caused the plaintiff left the home and remarried. The plaintiff then
brought actions against his 2 grandsons and 3 adopted sons. The plaintiff was claiming the possession
of the farm and hose. He was also claiming the damages for trespass. However, the defendants
alleged, inter alia, that they have contract between them and the plaintiff where the plaintiff agreed to
adopt them, and they will work for the plaintiff to acquire wealth. The defendants also stated that they
have the rights to have the farm and they equally share the property including the fam when the
plaintiff passed away. The court held that the father and the adopted son’s agreement was not intended
to create legal relations. Hence, it is not binding in law as a contract. Hence, it is clearly stated that
social and domestic agreements do not show intention to create legal relations. The principle of this
case can also be applied to Angelina’s case where Angelina cannot insist Mark and Hans to pay the
remaining money as promised earlier because a social and domestic case is presumed that there is no
intention to create legal relationship.
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Jones-v-Padavatton.php
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/jones-v-padavatton.php

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy