Based on the question given, it can be seen that one of the five elements of formation of

contract exists between Angelina and Mark as well as Hans which is intention to create legal relations.
There are two different types of agreements under intention to create legal relations which are social
and domestic agreements, and agreements that are made in commercial. However, the situation given
falls under intention to create legal relations in social and domestic agreements. The general rule in
social and domestic relations is that there is no intention to create legal relations or else there is some
written form to prove there was an intention to create legal relation. (CA Book) Therefore,
responsibility to take for social and domestic affairs are able to be encouraged among individuals.
According to the situation between Angelina and Mark, both of them are family relations. Therefore,
it must be separated from other agreements. Moreover, between Angelina and Hans, they are having
social friend’s relations. Hence, in term of rules, there is no presumption to be legally binding.

The given situation is similar in case of Balfour v Balfour (1919), Mr Balfour promised Mrs
Balfour that he would pay her 30 pound sterling every months as medical support. However, Mr
Balfour failed to keep his promise and stopped to pay her after they divorced. Hence, Mrs Balfour
sued Mr Balfour to enforce the promise. https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-
keyed-to-calamari/the-agreement-process/balfour-v-balfour/ The court held Mrs Balfour’s appeal
failed. This is because Mrs Balfour does not have any consideration for the promise. Besides that, the
court held that this type of case is social and domestic agreement. Therefore, the court assumed that
they do not intend to be legally bound. The court also stated that this kind of promise does not
consider as a contract.

Similarly, the agreement between Angelina, Mark and Hans is also social and domestic
agreement which is an agreement between family and friend. There was a presumption that this kind
of agreement are usually not meant to be legally binding unless there is an evidence to rebut the
presumption. Based on the case that we studied, Angelina has provided consideration as she had done
the work asked by her brother and her friend and she has nothing more to do but wait for the payment.
Her consideration was executed. Although this consideration can be an evidence to rebut the
presumption but the oral agreement made by them is an informal agreement with no intention to
create legal relations. The case of the Balfour v Balfour is an example of offer, acceptance and
consideration existing but it will still not be a contract because there was no intention to be legally
bound. As the court said, if this kind of social and domestic agreement between family and friend
treats as a contract, then the court will mostly use to handle this kind of cases. Therefore, Angelina
cannot insist on Mark and Hans paying the full amount of the initial promises.

Besides that, in the case of Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo Hock Swee (1959), there is an
agreement between relatives that was happened in Singapore. There was a pair of married couple
owned a farm in their house. In due course, they had adopted five sons. All the family members,
including 2 daughters and grandchildren lived together and worked on the farm. Hence it turned up
into a successful family business enterprise. After the death of his wife, the husband (respondent)
remarried and left the family home. His adopted sons were sued by him due to possession of the farm.
The respondent also claimed that the property was owned by him. However, the sons (defendants)
alleged that there were valid contracts among them and there was an intention to create legal relations.
They were agreed to be adopted and to work together for acquisition of wealth to be administered by
their adopted father. The Court of Appeal held that this was an agreement between families and it
was only the obligations of father and son. Therefore, there was no intention to create relations.

Based on the agreement between Angelina, Mark and Hans, although consideration had been
provided, there is no any evidence such as written agreement to prove that there was an intention to
create legal relations. Therefore, there is only agreement within family members between Angelina
and her brother, Mark. It was only an obligation between sister and brother. While between Angelina
and her friend, Hans, there is also no contract formed. This is because the work done for her friend
was only the affection of Angelina to her friend, Hans. As a result, Angelina cannot insist on Mark
and Hans paying the full amounts although the promise had made between each other.

Other than that, according to the case of Heslop v Burns (1974), Mr and Mrs Burns, who was
a pair of married couple had been entitled to possession of the Mr Timms’s house. In this case, the
married couple had several daughters and were living together in an attic. The wife, Mrs Burns who
was one of the workers of Mr Timms. Later, Mr Timms had developed feelings for her. He often
visited and expressed concern about the condition in which Mrs Burns lived. Then, he provided a
house to the wife and also her husband without any rent as he knew that they were poor. He promised
that the house was belonged to them. Unfortunately, Mr Timms passed away. The executor claimed to
have the premises occupied by the defendant but Mr and Mrs Burns argued that they were tenants of
the Mr Timms. By the Court of Appeal ruled that, the executor has the right to own the property of the
deceased, the defendant is not a voluntary tenant, but only the licensee. In the fact of this case, both of
the parties did not enter into any arrangement, far less any arrangement intended to create a legal
relationship, as to the terms on which the defendants should occupy the property. (BOOK)

Therefore, Angelina cannot insist on Mark and Hans paying the full amounts of the initial
promises because they have no contract between each other, there is also no arrangement, statement
and evidence of any discussion whatsoever taking place as to the terms of the occupation even she has
intention to create legal relation in domestic and family relation which have been applied to social
relationship as well.

Moreover, there is also a case similar to the question given, which is Jones v Padavatton
(1969). In the case, mother had made a promise to her daughter that she will pay her monthly
allowance if she agreed to read for the English Bar and gave up her work in Washington. However,
the agreement was changed and mother brought a house for her daughter to live in. Her daughter was
also encouraged to support herself by renting out the other rooms to tenants, instead of receiving the
allowance. After five years, when the daughter had still not passed her Bar exams, a quarrel happened
between two of them when mother sought to recover the house. (BOOK) The court held that family
members did not have intention to create the legal relations for a contract between each other. This is
because family member’s issues are made with the love and they trust between each other. Therefore,
mother won in the possession to the house.

There is some similarity between the given situation and the Jones v Padavatton (1969).
Angelina has provided consideration by completing the work given by her brother and friend.
However, the agreement was only made by oral without any written form. Therefore, there is no
evidence to show that they have legally binding contract between each other. As a result, Angelina
cannot insist on them paying the full amounts of the initial promises.

However, there is also some exceptions to the general rule that no intention to create legal
relations exists in domestic agreements. It is shown in the case of Merritt v Merritt (1970). Before the
husband and wife divorce, they owned their matrimonial home with their names. After years, the
husband left the home and agreed to pay his wife every month so that she will be able to cover the
payments of mortgage. He also promised that he would transfer the house under her name once she
had finished paying the instalments. All these arrangements were put into writing. The wife had been
paid off all the instalments but the husband refused to transfer the house to her. The wife appealed.
The court held that there was an intention to create legal relations between them. This is due to the
wife had provided consideration by paying off the instalments and hence a legal binding is formed.
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/merritt-v-merritt.php Moreover, all the arrangements were in
written form, hence there was an evidence to prove that both of them are intended to be legally bound.