Simpkins v Pays
A shared competition entry between members of a household can be a binding agreement where there is mutuality in the arrangement.
Facts
Miss Simpkins lodged with Mrs Pays and Mrs Pays's granddaughter. Each week the three of them sent in a joint entry to a fashion competition in a Sunday newspaper, with each making one of the forecasts. The entries were made in Mrs Pays's name, and they shared the cost of the postage and entry fees. The parties had agreed to share any prize. When one of the entries won £750, Mrs Pays refused to share it.
Legal principle
Sellers J held that there was a binding agreement to share the prize, so Miss Simpkins was entitled to a third. Although the arrangement arose in a domestic setting, it was a joint enterprise involving mutual contributions, and the parties intended to share any winnings. The case shows that the presumption against legal relations in social and domestic arrangements can be rebutted where money is contributed and there is mutuality in the arrangement.
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.
