The Student Room Group

Is this a goodanswer ? 1. John and Brian, who are brothers, were having lunch togethe

The issue is whether Brian’s acceptance is valid for an enforceable contract.
The first thing to consider is if there is a valid and enforceable contract between the parties. We start by validating if there is a clear offer. For this to be true there must be an expression of willingness to contract on specific terms. We can see from this case that John expressed in words by stating that they both enter (bilateral offer) and share the prize if one of them won- this can be clarified. For an offer to be accepted there must be clear agreement without any variations to key term, and it must be communicated (general rule), it states that Brian agreed so we can deem this to be true (verbal communication). ¬¬ Even though Brian stated that “Of course we won’t win” (uncertainty) there is no need for further negotiation after acceptance. So, we can establish that there is a valid offer and acceptance between the two parties.

John and Brian are brothers however, and there is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create a legally enforceable agreement when the agreement is domestic in nature. In the case of Balfour vs Balfour , the parties were husband and wife and because of this “parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences” This is because if the courts allowed these types of contracts to be enforceable a floodgate of cases will open. However, we can distinguish from Balfour vs Balfour because a contract between family members is enforceable where there is evidence that the parties intended the contract to create legal relations. In this case there is clear evidence that Brian intended to create legal intention as not only verbally agreed but also signed on a paper napkin. This can be backed by the parole evidence rule which states that “all of what has been agreed by both parties has been written down, neither can change orally”.

For there to be a valid and enforceable contract there must be consideration, this is “the price for the promise” It is unclear in this case if Brian gave consideration due to vague details of the case, however if Brian entered the competition and aided john in the quiz, then there would be argument there, as consideration must be sufficient not adequate (Chappell vs Nestle ). Brian aiding john with some of the questions in the quiz would be enough consideration, however like I said previously it is unclear whether this is true. Considering all the points I’ve made and that there was a clear enforceable contract that Brian accepted this with evidence. It seems the contract Is legally binding therefore Brian cannot claim for breach of contract.

Quick Reply