Intention to create legal relations: Difference between revisions

Intention to create legal relations (view source)

Revision as of 08:17, 11 April 2019

603 bytes added , 11 April 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 But I never thought it would come to this....
-There is some debate on whether the intention to create legal relations is a separate ingredient in a legally binding contract, or really just an evaluative description of what all the other ingredients ([[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[consideration]]) add up to.
+There is some debate on whether the [[intention to create legal relations]] is a separate ingredient in a legally binding contract, or really just an evaluative description of what all the other ingredients ([[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[consideration]]) add up to.
-There is some judicial authority that the intention to create legal relations is a separate thing, but dammit, that legal authority, however [[Doctrine of precedent|binding]] it might be, is wrong.
+Their worshipful honours have held<ref>{{cite|Edwards|Skyways|1964|1WLR|349}} that in an “express” contract or an “ordinary commercial transaction”, the burden of proof is on she who alleges the ''absence'' of an intention (but really? if, in actually signing a legal agreement, you did not intend to create legal relations, then what on earth did you think you ''were'' doing?) Where contract implied from conduct, then the person claiming the contract has the burden of proof. But this seems to be no more than a burden of proving [[offer and acceptance]] in the first place.
+There is some judicial authority that the [[intention to create legal relations]] is a separate thing, but dammit, that legal authority, however [[Doctrine of precedent|binding]] it might be, is wrong.
 As the maxim has it, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]''.
@@ Line 10: / Line 12: @@
 {{contractformation}}
+{{ref}}