The Intention To Create Legal Relations
| Published date | 01 May 1960 |
| Date | 01 May 1960 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00609.x |
MAY
1960
NOTES
OF
CASES
331
refusal to dissolve
or
annul actually monogamous but potentially
polygamous and/or polyandrous marriages.
In the result, therefore,
it
was very fortunate for the wife that
she promoted the idea of the London ceremony,
for
it
was the
celebration
of
that ceremony that enabled the judge to cut the
Gordian
Knot
and put an end to her marriage. But for that
marriage, she would have had to obtain a divorce valid according
to her husband’s domiciliary law and trust to recognition thereof
by the English courts.“
P.
R.
H.
WEBB.
THE
INTENTION
TO
CREATE
LEGAL
RELATIONS
THE recent case
of
Parker
v.
Clark’
shows that however well a
legal principle may be established, its particular application to the
facts may still give rise
to
litigation. The facts, which were not
really in dispute, were that an elderly couple living in their own
house in Torquay wrote to another much younger couple, the
plaintiffs in the case,
on
September
25, 1955,
inviting them to come
and live with them. The invitation was issued
on
the basis that
both couples should share in the maintenance
of
the house and
that the landlords should contribute a television set, a car and the
cost
of
the employment of a daily woman. The letter was suf-
ficiently detailed to suggest that the difficulty regarding the plain-
tiffs’ cottage, which would have to be given up,
“
can
be
solved by
our
leaving
‘
Cramond
’
and its major contents to Madeline, Mavis
and Pamela [the wife plaintiff, sister and daughter respectively]
when we both pass away and
if
you cannot maintain
it
they can
sell out. Its presenb value is
E9,000
to
€12,000
without contents.”
As
an inducement the same letter suggested that the plaintiffs
could sell their cottage, pay
off
the mortgage and “invest the
proceeds to increase your income.’’
The
plaintiffs accepted the invitation and settled in the house in
Torquay. About Easter
1957
a
will
was duly executed giving effect
to the terms
of
the letter of invitation. However. a few months
later
it
became clear that the owners of the house regretted the
arrangement. After much unpleasantness and
on
being told that
“
there are other ways of getting you out
”
the plaintiffs eventually
left the house in December
1957
in return for a cheque for
2150
and a promise to pay removal expenses but, as the plaintiffs
claimed, without prejudice to any of their rights under the original
letter. A claim was made about eight months later and a writ was
issued against the owners of the house
on
November
18, 1958.
17
Presumably an English
court
would have recognised a dissolution of the
English marriage
by
means appropriate to
dissolve
a polygamous marriage
afforded
by
the law
of
the husband’s domicile-if, that is, it followed
El-Riyami
V.
El-Riyami (The ?me,,
April
1,
1958)
rather than the so-called
Hammersmith
Marriage
Case
[1917]
1
K.B.
634
(C.A.).
1
[l960]
1
All
E.R.
93;
[l960] 2
W.L.R.
286.
To continue reading
Request your trial