This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Law

Law of contract copy one

This essay is written by:

Louis PHD Verified writer

Finished papers: 5822

4.75

Proficient in:

Psychology, English, Economics, Sociology, Management, and Nursing

You can get writing help to write an essay on these topics
100% plagiarism-free

Hire This Writer

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

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask