Todd v Nicol
[1957] SASR 72
Case details
Court
Supreme Court of South Australia
Citations
[1957] SASR 72
Judges
Justice Mayo
Issues
Intention to create legal relations
Overview
Nicol (in South Australia) invited the Todd’s (Margaret, her sister-in-law and Grace, her niece) to move from Scotland to Australia and to live with her to keep her company following the death of her husband. This was proposed in a letter, including a promise to alter her will to ensure the house would be the Todds’ when Nicol passed.
The Todds’ accepted the offer, Grace Todd resigned her employment, and they moved to Australia and resided with Nicol for many years.
The relationship deteriorated and Nicol asked the Todd’s to move out.
An issue arose as to whether their agreement constituted a binding contract.
On the issue of intention
Nicol claimed that there was no intention to create legal relations; the Todd’s claimed there was. In the communications between the parties Justice Mayo observed [at 79]:
‘… there is no explicit reference to intention, that is to say, to an intention to create obligations that are legally enforceable. In the absence of any statement concerning that purpose it is necessary to inquire whether there is any material from which an inference may be drawn. By a process of reasoning it may be possible to ascertain if any such an intention can be attributed to the parties having regard to the features with which they have enveloped the project.
… There can be no definite rule or formula for deducing the purpose or intention entertained, that is to say, whether enforcement of a plan is to depend on trust or legal sanction. The process of elucidation will be empirical.’
Certain elements suggested likely intention here - moving from Scotland to Australia, expectations that the Todd’s would have to sell certain belongings to facilitate the move and provisions of a change to Nicol’s will to give the Todd’s security.
His Honour concluded:
‘the intention to be attributed to the parties was to enter into a contract that was legally binding’
Terms and breach
A further issue arose about whether a term could be implied that the Todd’s must behave in a reasonable and decent manner and, if so, whether that term had been breached. Justice Mayo answered in the affirmative in relation to both issues. Judgment was therefore given for Nicol and the Todd’s ordered to vacate the home.