Issue: Did Buddy and Peggy-Sue intend the agreement to be legally binding?
Laws
In the case of Fleming v. Beevers, the two had been in a relationship for more than 20 years, and the couple bought a house in which they shared the financing of the purchase. Without leaving a new will to secure some share to Fleming, Beevers died leaving the previous will. The house was disposed off per the prior will and nothing left for Fleming. The court held that the two parties had a strong influence with clear intentions and a structured agreement over the valuable property. Fleming got the half share of the property as the transactions were intended to have legal effect.
In the case of Spellman v. Spellman, the wife was promised a car by her husband to improve their relationship. The husband bought the car through the hire purchase agreement, which was registered under the wife’s name. Later on, the two broke up, and the husband refused to transfer the ownership to the wife; therefore, the wife sued him for enforcement of the agreement. The court held that the arrangement was purely domestic, and there were no intentions to make legal relations, and thus the wife had no legal rights in the car.
In the case of Taverner v. Swanbury, a fourteen-year-old boy at a family gathering agreed to help his father work in the market garden until the younger brother completed school. In return, the father provided the boy with food and clothes as well as some pocket money. The court held that such an agreement had no intention to legally create an enforceable contract as family agreements are considered as acts of faith rather than legal binding contracts.
Application
Generally, the court rulings involving friends in agreements or contracts, is that the agreement has to be enforceable, and parties must show that there was an intention to create a legally binding relationship. From the ruling of Fleming v. Beevers, the two parties had an enforceable relationship despite being friends; they had clear intentions to create a clear legal obligation toward the valuable property. Despite Buddy and Peggy-Sue being friends, they had an agreement that they must share out the $10 for the Friday ticket. The agreement of sharing out satisfies the legal requirement for it to be considered legally binding.
Based on the ruling of Spellman v. Spellman, the fact that family members or spouses make many agreements and promises to each other that involve money, they may not be considered to be legal abiding agreements. Despite the agreements involving offer, acceptance, and consideration, the parties never intended the contracts to be attended by legal consequences. Similarly, in the case of Buddy and Peggy-Sue, their agreement is enforceable under certain circumstances that, even if Peggy-Sue fails to bring $5 on Friday, he must refund to Buddy even after Friday.
From the ruling of Taverner v. Swanbury, the contracts involving family members is considered to be closely related to those of friends. However, the agreement between Buddy and Peggy-Sue was not out of good faith (despite the informal agreement); instead, the two parties intended to share a prize equally, which makes the contract legally enforceable.
Conclusion
From the above facts, it is clear that Peggy-Sue deserves the half share of $130000 lotto ticket since the agreement between the two was legally binding.