LW 290 Law Assignment
Report on Legal Advice to Joe
a) To Joe’s horror his step sister, Agatha, has written to him claiming half his lottery winnings. When Joe first started playing the lottery his step sister had contributed half the cost every week and they had often talked about what they would do with their respective shares of any winnings. Agatha had not contributed anything the particular week Joe hit the jackpot. Joe assumes he does not need to pay her anything and needs confirmation of the legal position. According to Joe, his step-sister had not contributed any money towards the particular week that Joe had hit the lottery. However, prior to that, Agatha had contributed her half every week which meant there was an agreement to share the winnings if they had hit the jackpot. According to the Contract of Law, a ‘Meeting of the minds’ was established and both Agatha and Joe had discussed what they would do with their winnings. On the other hand, if both parties were smart about such a decision, there would have been a written contract in place. Although there was verbal talk about having a chance of sharing the winnings, it would not be enough to prove that Joe has the right to give Agatha any money because she did not pay any money during that week that Joe won. If she had contributed any money, she would be fully entitled to half the lottery winnings. In the case of Re Stewart v Casey (Casey’s Patents) 1892, CA) the claimant had put in hours of his own time to the development of an invention for his employers at their request. The employers promised that they would pay him a share of the profits once the invention was patented. The courts held that the employers were bound by the promise because the employee had done the work that he had been asked, and the basis of their relationship expressed that there was future payment to be made. In Joe’s case there was not an explicit promise to pay the lottery share. Another case that demonstrates that there is no intention to be legally bound is in the case of Balfour vs Balfour, (Lawnix) where Mr Balfour agreed to pay his wife £30 a month as maintenance while he was living abroad. They had separated and Mr Balfour stopped paying his wife, and she brought action against him to enforce the payments. The courts had held that there was no enforceable agreement because there was no evidence to suggest that both parties were legally bound by the promise. So in relevance to Joe’s case, he does not have to pay Agatha the lottery because there was no enforceable agreement between the two. (364 words)
b) At the start of negotiations to buy additional premises from Lawrence & Co the managing director, Tim, informs Joe that the premises are big enough to garage 25 of Joe’s courier vans. Whilst the negotiations are proceeding the managing director realises he made a mistake as he confused these premises with another larger premises he was selling nearby. As the contract does not mention the capacity of the premises Tim feels there will not be any legal comeback. After the sale is completed Joe discovers, much to his annoyance, that he can only squeeze in 15 vans and wants to take some form of legal action against Lawrence & Co. Legal action can be taken against Lawrence & Co because Tim specifically stated that Joe can fit 25 courier vans. Joe had relied on the Tim’s description because he is the managing director, which means he has expert knowledge of the premises. According to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Section 13, The Sale by Description is a sale where there is a reliance on description. When there is a contract for the sale of goods by description there is an implied term that the goods would correspond with the description. In Joe’s defence, he had relied on Tim’s description of the premises informing him that the premises are large enough to take 25 of Joe’s vans. In the case of Arcos v Ronaasen, (1933, wooden...