Todd v Nicol [1957] Defendant wrote to the Plaintiffs (sister and niece of her deceased husband) to say how

happy she would be if they would come to live with her in Australia. "I must have company at my age it is not good to live alone. The house is big enough; I will do all I can to make it comfortable for you, and we could change it around when you arrive. If you do come, and sell your things, keep your cutlery and linen as we might be short of those things. I will help with emigration and jobs. When she heard that they would be coming, the defendant wrote to say that she had that morning visited her solicitor to add a codicil to her will to the effect that if anything were to happen to her, when I sign it the house is yours for life Margaret without expense, also you Gracie (unless you marry) and then in the following letter she said that she was doing her darn desk to think things out for their protection - just in case. Obviously the in case she had in mind was her decreasing the others - not the breakdown of the relationship as in fact happened. So, is there a contract enforceable in law, or just a social arrangement? The judge explicitly acknowledged that the parties had probably not given any conscious thought to the question of legal sanctions. He then gave a good statement of consideration in terms of benefit and detriment. He pointed out that business arrangements are presumed to be legally enforceable - however, in this sort of situation we have either an honorable pledge - without legal enforceability, or else we have: 1 the grant of an interest in land GRANT 2 a licence to occupy which is enforceable CONTRACT 3 an equity - in favour of the licensees ESTOPPEL Here, there the parties made no explicit reference to intention, so the court has to determine how best to deal with things. There is the expense - selling of plaintiff's things, no provision for discharge of the arrangement - the testamentary adjunct as the judge called it. Now this could all have been based on goodwill, but I incline to think that the arrangement was intended to be binding during the defendants lifetime. Otherwise the Plaintiffs would have been subject to the

whim of the defendant in such an important aspect of their lives. The intention of the parties was to enter into a legally binding arrangement. However, the sting in the tail of this case was that whilst the plaintiff's won on the question of intention - so as to create a contract [The Formation Aspect]- the judge then found that their behaviour was so unreasonable, that he found them in breach of contract.[the other side won on the Excuses Aspect]

Simpkins v Pays (1955) The presumption that an agreement is not intended to be legally binding is also applied to social relationships between people who are not related. Again, it can be rebutted. In Simpkins v Pays (1955) the plaintiff enjoyed entering competitions run in Sunday newspapers. When he took lodgings in the defendants house, she and her granddaughter began to do the competitions with him, sharing the cost of entry. The plaintiff filled in the forms in the name of the defendant, and she promised to share any winnings. Eventually, one of the entries was successful, and the defendant won 750. The plaintiff claimed a third of the sum as his share of the prize, but the defendant refused, claiming that she had not intended to be legally bound by the agreement. The court upheld the plaintiffs claim, considering that they had all contributed to the competition with the expectation that any prize would be shared. Held: There was a binding contract despite the family connection as the lodger was also party to the contract. This rebutted the presumption of no intention to create legal relations. Many of us have dreamt of winning the national lottery and buy tickets every week at our local shop hoping to win the Saturday night draw unfortunately we know that the odds are stacked against us winning. Some people buy lottery tickets with a group of friends or work colleagues and occasionally disputes can arise as to how the money should be shared. No cases have come to court directly relating to lottery tickets but a couple of interesting cases have arisen relating to purported agreements between women playing bingo to share any winnings. The same legal

principles are likely to be applied to any future disputes relating to lottery winnings. Such agreements are viewed as social agreements by the courts for which there is a rebuttable presumption that the parties do not intend to create legal relations.