In your own words summarise the views of Fenton Atkinson and Salmon L and state, with reasons, which you prefer. You do not need to deal with the judgement of Danckwerts .

Name: Leyla Shahin Class: Small Group 5.

In the case of Jones v Padavatton (1969) 2 All ER the Court of Appeal decided that there was no legally binding contract. Although the decision was unanimous the three Court of Appeal judges did not all give the same reasons.

Citation: Jones v Padavatton (1969) 2 ALL ER 616 – Electronic Version.

The judges were deciding an appeal by the mother, Violet Lalgee Jones. By way of case stated from Clerkenwell County Court, on grounds: 1. the judge misdirected himself in holding that there had been intentions of legal relations between the two parties. 2. The judge misdirected himself in holding that that agreement was not void for uncertainty. 3. The judge’s conclusions were not supported by evidence. 4. The judge mistakenly failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence given by or on behalf of the mother and 5. The judge misdirected himself in holding that the daughter was entitled to remain in the mother’s house for an indefinite amount of time.

Commencing with Salmon ’s view, he first had to decide whether there was ever a legally binding agreement between the mother and the daughter in relation to the daughter’s reading for the Bar in England. He begins, quoting Atkins in the case of Balfour v Balfour, that to summarise, there is presumption that most agreements are not contracts at all, especially those made by close family, however Salmon does stress that presumptions can be rebutted. Salmon then stresses the daughter’s reliance in giving up her job and moving to England and considered that the original agreement made was intended by both parties to have contractual force. Both parties had intentions to have the legal right to respectively receive and pay the allowance of $200 a month (This was even accompanied by a letter by the mother’s attorney in Trinidad). However, he implied a term that the agreement would last for a reasonable amount of time to enable her daughter to complete her studies. The reasonable time he gave was five years, which had elapsed at the time of action, and so the daughter could not rely on the agreement. Concerning the possession of the property, Salmon stated that it was up to the daughter to make a new contract about her rights to stay in her mother’s house indefinitely, but she failed to do so. The daughter has no legal claim on the mother to house her and contribute to her support and that of her son and husband. For the reasons above that Salmon indicated, there is no defence to the action and he would therefore allow the appeal.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Fenton Atkinson’s had arrived at the same conclusion however, by the way of a different direction. He begins by also quoting the words of Atkins in the case of Balfour v Balfour, that to summarise, most agreements are not contracts at all, especially those made by close family. In Fenton Atkinson’s view, there are three main matters, which are important. Firstly, there was confusion as to which currency the allowance was going to be converted from. The payments were accepted by the daughter without any suggestion at any stage that the mother had legally contracted her for the larger sum. Secondly, the arrangements concerning for the purchase of the property, were far too vague and uncertain to be a contract. Thirdly, Fenton looks at the evidence of the daughter refusing to open the front door to the mother for hours, her reasons being that she was upset by the actions of her mother suing her. This also proves that that the daughter did not ever contemplate going to court to enforce legal obligations. Fenton is fully satisfied that neither party intended to enter into a legally binding contract.

The main issues within this case are whether there was an intention to create legal relations, if there was a contract and subsequently if the contract had been breached. However, the close domestic relationship of the two parties involved brings a complexity to this case. Therefore, the reasoning behind Salmon is not entirely convincing. It is correct that consideration should be given within a contract, and if the daughter’s consideration had been the giving up good earnings, good accommodation and moving with her son to England to start her studies, this does not mean that there are legal intentions. Although Salmon maybe correct in stating that there was agreement for the mother to pay the allowance and the daughter to receive and leave to England, the “agreement” was as Fenton insists, very vague, which is proved by the misunderstanding of the currency of the allowance and the fact of the daughter not acknowledging the misunderstanding at the time. If this was the case, every family dispute over a Childs pocket money implies intention to create legal relations. In my view, Fenton is correct in saying that the close relationship between the two parties (and the vagueness of the agreement) means that there was no intention to create legal relations. I believe that it would be unthinkable for the daughter to sue the mother if the mother had experienced financial decline and unable to pay the allowance. Supporting evidence of this is that the daughter wanted to make the mother “proud” by becoming a Barrister and practice in Trinidad. Also, vice versa the mother would not leave her daughter destitute. Supporting evidence of this being that the mother was very close to the daughter by the fact that she wanted her daughter to practise as a barrister and move to Trinidad to be closer to her and to her grandson.

To conclude, this case is an unusual contractual case in that the parties involved are mother and daughter. Therefore it is quite difficult to define the extent of intentions of legal intentions and therefore if there was a contract. Salmon said that there was a contract but the question of the lapsing of time, made the contract null and void. Fenton said that there was not a contract in the first place due to the close relationship of the two parties and the vagueness of the agreement. As stated previously, in my view, Fenton’s view is more convincing. There were no legal intentions or contract made in the first place and therefore the daughter has no legal rights over the mother’s property.

Words: Exactly 1000, excluding title.