Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
upon a promise which was initially expressed to be made without an intention to be bound, there are strong reasons for holding the promise which induces reliance to be enforceable. Thus, in domestic arrangements, the fact that the promisee has acted to his or her detriment in the belief that the promise of the other party will be fulfilled will often provide a reason for enforcing the promise of that other. In Merritt v Merritt, a husband and wife married in 1941 and built a house as a matrimonial home. Subsequently, the marriage was dissolved when the husband went to live with another woman. In 1966, the husband agreed to pay the wife £40 per month if she would agree to pay the £180 debt still owed to a building society in respect of the former matrimonial home. The wife agreed to this, provided the husband agreed to sign a document which stated that, in consideration of the wife paying all charges in connection with the house, he would agree to transfer the house into her sole ownership. The wife kept her side of the bargain and subsequently obtained an order that the house belonged to her. This was granted and the husband was ordered to join in the necessary conveyance: Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211, CA, p 1213
DOI link for upon a promise which was initially expressed to be made without an intention to be bound, there are strong reasons for holding the promise which induces reliance to be enforceable. Thus, in domestic arrangements, the fact that the promisee has acted to his or her detriment in the belief that the promise of the other party will be fulfilled will often provide a reason for enforcing the promise of that other. In Merritt v Merritt, a husband and wife married in 1941 and built a house as a matrimonial home. Subsequently, the marriage was dissolved when the husband went to live with another woman. In 1966, the husband agreed to pay the wife £40 per month if she would agree to pay the £180 debt still owed to a building society in respect of the former matrimonial home. The wife agreed to this, provided the husband agreed to sign a document which stated that, in consideration of the wife paying all charges in connection with the house, he would agree to transfer the house into her sole ownership. The wife kept her side of the bargain and subsequently obtained an order that the house belonged to her. This was granted and the husband was ordered to join in the necessary conveyance: Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211, CA, p 1213
upon a promise which was initially expressed to be made without an intention to be bound, there are strong reasons for holding the promise which induces reliance to be enforceable. Thus, in domestic arrangements, the fact that the promisee has acted to his or her detriment in the belief that the promise of the other party will be fulfilled will often provide a reason for enforcing the promise of that other. In Merritt v Merritt, a husband and wife married in 1941 and built a house as a matrimonial home. Subsequently, the marriage was dissolved when the husband went to live with another woman. In 1966, the husband agreed to pay the wife £40 per month if she would agree to pay the £180 debt still owed to a building society in respect of the former matrimonial home. The wife agreed to this, provided the husband agreed to sign a document which stated that, in consideration of the wife paying all charges in connection with the house, he would agree to transfer the house into her sole ownership. The wife kept her side of the bargain and subsequently obtained an order that the house belonged to her. This was granted and the husband was ordered to join in the necessary conveyance: Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211, CA, p 1213
ABSTRACT
Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211, CA, p 1213 Lord Denning MR: The first point taken on his behalf by Mr Thompson is that the agreement was not intended to have legal relations. It was, he says, a family arrangement such as was considered by the court in Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 and in Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328. So, the wife could not sue upon it.
