Case Facts
In the case of Roufos v Brewster (1971) 2 SASR 218, Mr. and Mrs. Brewster owned a motel in Coober Pedy, while their son-in-law, Roufos, operated a small store. Roufos drove the Brewsters’ truck to Adelaide for repairs, with an understanding that if he could find someone to drive the truck back to Coober Pedy, he could use the vehicle to transport goods for his business. During this return journey, the truck was involved in an accident, leading the Brewsters to sue Roufos for the cost of repairs.
Court’s decision
The court focused on whether there was an intention to create legal relations between the parties. Traditionally, there is a presumption that agreements between family members are not intended to be legally binding, as they are usually social or domestic in nature. However, in this case, the court held that the agreement between Roufos and the Brewsters was indeed legally binding. Chief Justice Bray emphasized that the context was commercial rather than domestic, as both parties were involved in separate businesses. Bray CJ noted that “the whole setting of the arrangement is commercial rather than social or domestic,” which outweighed any familial relationship between the parties.
Significance of the case (Roufos v Brewster)
The decision in Roufos v Brewster illustrates that in determining the intention to create legal relations, the factual circumstances of the agreement may carry more weight than the relationship between the parties. The court concluded that, given the commercial setting, the parties intended to enter into a binding contract, thereby obligating Roufos to be liable for damages arising from the accident involving the truck.
List of references:
- https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/the-essence-of-contract-contract-law-essay.php
- https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Intention-to-Create-Legal-Relations-PK5YQJS5H3GEY
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW: