Law of contract copy one
Issue
The issue is to identify whether Buddy and Peggy-sue had the intention to create a legitimately binding contract.
Laws
In the case of Pakenham v Pakenham, the plaintiff’s daughter argued that the money lent to her by her father was meant to be paid back after five years. She claimed that their agreement was a family arrangement that never intended to create an enforceable contract. But as established by the court, that the parties had the intention to create a legal relation.
According to the case of Condon v Parkinson, the court alleged that the nature of the Condon and Parkinson agreement had the intention to bind a contractual relationship since both parties had a clear intention to be bound.
As established in the Fleming v Beevers case, the court held that the presence of Fleming and Beevers’s de facto affiliation justified their agreement was binding; therefore, Fleming had a share in the house. The court further affirmed that the social agreement was enforceable since both parties had the intention to create a legally binding relationship.
Application
The nature of the parties is one of the factors that ought to be considered while determining whether their agreement is binging or not. Based on the case of Pakenham v Pakenham both parties had the intention to enforce a contractual relationship from the beginning of their agreement. The court argued that an agreement that involves material terms is henceforth considered to impose a legally binding contract. Similarly, in the case of Peggy-Sue and Buddy, they had a mutual agreement concerning their contribution with the intention to share any amount won through the lotto tickets they purchased. The fact that Peggy-sue always honored her contribution provides valid grounds that both parties had the intention to enforce contractual relations in the future. As supported in the Fleming v Beevers case, the court acknowledged that the nature of the parties justified that their agreement was legally binding. The court further identified that strangers could also establish agreements that are valid for creating a legal contract. In addition to that, the court recognized that the natures of the social agreements between friends are legally binding as well as recognized by the law. Therefore, having a friendship relationship, Buddy and Peggy-sue justified that both the parties had the intention to create a legitimate contract. The fact that they had a mutual agreement to contributed $10 dollars for the lotto ticket validates that Buddy and Peggy-sue had the intention to generate a legitimate contract. Similarly, Condon v Parkinson case, support the fact that Buddy and Peggy-Sue had the full consent while settling their agreement to contribute $5 dollars toward the lotto ticket, therefore, they had mutual intention to enforce a contractual relationship.
Conclusion
As per the readings above, Peggy-Sue can successfully sue Buddy and claim a half share of $1,300,000 lotto winnings.
References
Fleming v Beevers [1994] 1 NZLR 385 (CA)
[2008] NZHC 1479