Ktea protocols

Workshop 2 ILAC Hypotheticals Keith & Patti:

This is a model answer to help students learn how to answer ILAC problem questions. Whilst it is a contract law problem, the same set-out and approach is used for answering all ILAC questions in the course. Scaffolded comments are placed on the side of the document. Please read these in conjunction with the document ‘A guide to answering ILAC hypotheticals’ available on the course website.

Keith and Patti lived in Sussex England, with their two daughters. Keith worked in the music industry and Patti as a hairdresser. Patti’s only living relative is her wealthy 85 year old grandmother, Trudy, who moved into an apartment on the Gold Coast in Australia in 2016. Trudy greatly missed her great-grandchildren and in 2018 wrote to Patti and Keith asking them to leave Sussex and come and live at the Coast so she could be close to them and their children. She said she would buy them a large family home, right on the beach and pay for all their living expenses until Keith and Patti found new jobs. While Keith had a good job, Patti’s career was going nowhere, so based on Trudy’s offer the family sold their house, quit their jobs and moved to Australia. Comment by s1549997: It is a good idea to circle/square name of parties when you read them for the first time Comment by s1549997: It is a good idea to underline names of places – possible jurisdiction issues – In this course you will not need to worry about this – you will be told which jurisdiction to apply as it is an introductory course Comment by s1549997: Family relationship Comment by s1549997: Because it is in writing it makes it more serious – showing intention to be bound Comment by s1549997: Serious consequences Comment by s1549997: Showing intention to be bound - making a serious offer Comment by s1549997: Serious consequences – serious promise accept

The whole family lived in Trudy’s large apartment while they tried to find a suitable place of their own. Unfortunately, Trudy and the family fought day and night. Trudy did not get on with the girls, now teenagers, and in a rage threw the whole family out of her apartment and told them she would not buy them a house afterall. The family moved out of Trudy’s apartment and rented a house at Nerang. Comment by s1549997: Breaching the promise given (breaching of the contract)

· Keith and Patti want to know if they can force Trudy to honour her promise to buy them a house and to pay for their living expenses until they find jobs. Comment by s1549997: Good idea to read the bottom couple of lines first to try to work out who you are advising and the issue. In introductory courses it is often found at the end of the ILAC.

Hint for students for finding the legal issue and cases:

Read the text and lecture notes and look for evidence to support there being/not being a contractual relationship and find similar type of cases (Intention). The answer must be set out in the following legal format – Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion.

Hint for students in regard to framing the issue:

Phrase a legal question that you are going to use to answer the problem – for example, in this case the issue (legal question) should discuss whether there was an enforceable contractual relationship between the parties. Try to use the parties’ names within the legal question, as part of the issue.

· In order to answer this question, you need to think about Elements 1 & 2 discussed in Lecture 3.

Issue:

Is there a legally binding contract between Keith, Patti and Trudy in regard to the purchase of a new house on the beach and pay for all their living expenses until Keith and Patti found new jobs? More specifically, did Trudy, Patti and Keith intend for their agreement to have legally binding effect? Comment by soeadmin: Legal issue in general terms Comment by soeadmin: Specific legal issue: Intention to be bound. The more detailed/ specific – the better the mark. Comment by soeadmin: You may use one long question or multiple questions.

Hints for students in working out what Law applies:

For the Contract hypotheticals, legislation will not apply. For our purposes most of contract law is based on the common law.

Hints for students:

· What is the specific part of the law that is in question?

· What is the case that is going to support your client’s argument?

· What is the case that is going to be adverse to your client’s argument?

State the names of the supporting cases and the legal principle here.

Law : Comment by soeadmin: Cases (and later legislation) must be applied/mentioned in the application to be awarded marks under the heading of Law.

Balfour v Balfour: Presumption of no intention in domestic/social/voluntary agreements.

Todd v Nicol: Rebuttal of presumption where serious consequences.

Hints to students for developing the Application/Analysis/Argument: (Whichever heading you want to use):

Make sure you leave plenty of white space between the headings. Underline your headings and case names – and legislation in second part of the semester. It makes it easier for you markers to follow. In the application you only need the first or last name of the cases, as long as you have listed their full name under the heading of Law above.

Explain how the cases apply to this scenario. Treat it like a short essay, supporting your argument by use of the cases (references). Whenever possible show both sides of the argument when advising a party (the good & the bad)

Who is the plaintiff/respondent?

Explain how the cases you have mentioned above apply to the question. Sometimes it will be necessary to show both sides of the argument i.e. the arguments the different parties will use to have the dispute (issue) resolved in their favour.

Application/Analysis/Argument:

(Most marks are given for this section. It is a demonstration of your understanding of how the cases apply to the facts of the ILAC).

If the agreement between the parties is of a social, voluntary or domestic nature, the courts will presume that the parties do not intend to create legal relations (be legally bound). This legal principle was originally developed in Balfour v Balfour , where the courts found there was no binding contract when a man promised to pay his wife a regular maintenance (income), because the matter was domestic (family) in nature. In this hypothetical the agreement is between Trudy and her Granddaughter Patti and Patti’s husband Keith. They are clearly relatives so this agreement is of a domestic nature and prima facie (on the face of it), the presumption that there was no intention to be legally bound by their agreement will apply. However, the courts will allow the presumption to be rebutted if the consequences are serious as in the following cases. Comment by soeadmin: Very brief explanation of case/legal principle then connected (applied) to the facts of the hypothetical. Comment by soeadmin: Case/legal principle -applied to the given hypothetical. Comment by soeadmin: Rebuttal of legal principle.