Wilson v Burnett
Casual conversation among friends about sharing winnings does not show an intention to create legal relations.
Facts
Three women who were friends and work colleagues regularly went to a bingo club together. One evening, Ms Burnett won a national bingo prize of over £100,000. The other two claimed that the three had agreed to share any winnings over £10 equally, and sued for their share. Ms Burnett said that there had been no such agreement and that any conversation about sharing was just talk.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's finding that there was no binding agreement. Even if the friends had spoken about sharing winnings, the conversation was no more than idle chatter, without the certainty or seriousness needed to show an intention to create legal relations. The burden was on the claimants to prove that the parties intended to be legally bound, and in a social context of this kind they had not done so. The case is often contrasted with Simpkins v Pays.
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.
