216003644

Contract Law

Introduction
For a contract to arise in the circumstances of the question, both parties must intend to
have or create legal relations and be bound by it. If there is actually the intent to do as
stated above, a contract between the parties will be valid. Also, if there was some sought
of consideration, it can be considered as a valid contract.
Issues
The issue raised by the question is whether Mrs Asumadu can sue Mr Asumadu on
either the written agreement or the oral undertaking to continue paying the rent and
school fees as promised.
Rules
An intention to create legal relation has been defined as:
Intention to create legal relations is defined as an intention to enter a legally binding
agreement or contract. Intention to create legal relations is one of the necessary
elements in formation of a contract. It is because, intention to create legal relations
consists of readiness of a party to accept the legal sequences of having entered into an
agreement. Intention to create legal relations is a motion of every contracting party must
have the necessary intention to enter into a legally binding contract.1
Consideration has been defined as follows:
Consideration can be defined as something that is worth and have value such as an
item or services.
Consideration is a worth consideration which may involve right, interest, profit or
benefit of one party which come from any forbearance, detriment, loss or
responsibilities occurred and after being experience of the promisee. 2
The important aspect of intention to create legal relations is to note that if the agreement
is of a social or domestic nature, the law has created a presumption that such agreements
do not have an intention to create legal relations as the court held in Balfour V Balfour
that the agreement was purely a domestic agreement. This will prevent Mrs Asumadu
from suing her ex-husband. However in consideration, there must be some form of

1
Contract Law, Ewan Mckendrick, 7th edition
2
Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; (1875-76) LR 1 App Cas 554
right, interest, profit or benefits to one party or some forbearance, loss or suffering. Mrs
Asumadu’s words on not requesting any financial provision from the court to Mr
Asumadu to which he agreed on was some forbearance for her since she forwent the
court’s financial provision.

Application of the Law to the Facts of the Problem

The significant fact in the problem is Mrs Asumadu Mr Asumadu were married when
they agreed and signed to the agreement. The rule makes it clear under intentions to
create legal relation is a domestic agreement and as such it is not binding on both
parties. Where as in the case of Merritt v Merritt where the agreement was made after
the couple had decided to separate. The decision of the court was that it can be inferred
from the circumstances between the parties that the promise was legally binding.
The reason for the decision was that there was an objective ground for the decision. It
was, according to Lord Denning MR, that from the circumstances one must ask whether
the party deems their agreement legally binding. Therefore, it was presented in the case
that honorable understanding is already absent in the relationship of the parties. With
this, it can be inferred that they intended their agreement to be legally enforceable.3

Grounds on which Mrs. Asumadu can now sue on is consideration. Her forbearance
was on the fact that she decided to withdraw the financial provisions from court if her
ex-husband was still going to pay for school fees and rent. He not acting on his word
resulted in him not delivering from his side of the agreement. In Tsede v Nubuasa, the
court held that an agreement to forbear from instituting legal proceedings to enforce a
legal or an equitable right is a sufficient consideration for a promise to pay a debt
already incurred. Such an agreement to forbear can be implied from the facts of this
case, and the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed. Mrs Asumadu agreed to forbear from
instituting legal proceedings to the court as stated in the case above.4

3
Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211 Court of Appeal
4
Tsede and others v. Nubuasa and another [1962] GLR 338-340
Conclusion

On the basis of Mrs Asumadu suffering some forbearance by desisting from pursuing
legal actions against Mr Asumadu and for he not adhering to it as he promised, there
has been a breech in the agreement. This means that Mrs Asumadu can sue Mr Asumadu
on the grounds of consideration. The advice to Mrs Asumadu is that she has legal
grounds to sue .