Parker v Clark
A family arrangement can be legally binding where the circumstances and the seriousness of what was agreed show an intention to be bound.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Clark, an elderly couple, invited Mr and Mrs Parker, Mrs Parker being Mrs Clark's niece, to come and live with them and share their house. Mr Clark wrote a letter setting out the arrangements, including how the household expenses would be shared and that he would leave a share of the house to the Parkers in his will. Relying on this, the Parkers sold their own house and moved in. The relationship broke down, and the Clarks told the Parkers to leave.
Legal principle
Devlin J held that the agreement was a binding contract, and the Parkers were entitled to damages. Although it was a family arrangement, the parties must have intended it to be legally binding. The Parkers would not have sold their home in reliance on an arrangement with no legal effect, and the detailed terms of Mr Clark's letter supported that conclusion. Whether the parties intended to create legal relations depends on all the circumstances, and the presumption against it in family matters can be rebutted.
Related cases on intention to create legal relations
- Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 394, [2013] 3 All ER 607
- Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 737
- Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
- Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm)
- Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349
- Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1976] 1 WLR 1
- Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328
- Jones v Vernon's Pools Ltd [1938] 2 All ER 626
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
