Simpkins v Pays [1955]: Contract Law and Legal Intent

Simpkins v Pays is a leading contract law case that discusses the intention of parties to create legal obligations in a domestic context.

Case name & citation: Simpkins v Pays [1955] 1 WLR 975; [1955] 3 All ER 10

Jurisdiction: Assizes (Chester)

Plaintiff: Ms. Simpkins

Defendant: Ms. Pays

Key Facts (Simpkins v Pays)

The plaintiff was a paying lodger at the defendant’s house. The defendant and her granddaughter, along with the paying lodger, regularly participated in a weekly newspaper competition every Sunday. Each of them used to fill in a line on the paper, and all the entries were submitted in the defendant’s name, with the understanding that any winnings would be shared among them. Any expenses incurred were covered by either party without any fixed arrangement. In other words, there was no agreed system for covering costs such as postage.

On one occasion, they won £750 in the competition, but the defendant refused to share the prize.

The paying lodger (the plaintiff) sued for her one-third share. The plaintiff claimed that there was an agreement between them which obligated the defendant to pay her a proportionate share of the prize money. In response, the defendant contended that there was no contract, as the parties did not intend to create legal relations.

Issue

• Was the defendant liable to pay one-third of the prize money to the plaintiff?
• Did the arrangement between the parties give rise to a legal contract?

Relevant Rule of Law

Intention to create legal obligations:

When two or more parties enter into an arrangement, it is essential that they intend to create a legal relationship; otherwise, it will not give rise to a legally binding contract.

In family or social arrangements—for example, an agreement to host someone for dinner or to play sports—it is generally presumed that the parties do not intend to create legal relations. In contrast, in commercial agreements, it is usually presumed that the parties do intend legal consequences to follow. However, this is not always the case. Parties may intend to create legal relations even in family or social contexts, just as they may choose not to do so in business contexts—for instance, where they rely on mutual trust, good faith, or honour rather than legal enforcement.

Thus, the intention to create legal relations may vary from case to case. It must be determined from the terms of the agreement and the surrounding circumstances in which it was made.

Furthermore, the test for determining contractual intention is objective, not subjective. This means that what matters is not what the parties had in their own minds, but what a reasonable person would conclude about their intention in the given circumstances. A mere assertion by the promisor that there was no intention to create legal relations does not exempt them from liability if the court determines otherwise. (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.)

Judgement of the Court in Simpkins v Pays

In the instant case, the Court held that the defendant was obligated to share the prize, as any reasonable person examining the arrangement would conclude that the parties intended to share the winnings and create a contractual obligation. Furthermore, the presence of the lodger, among other factors, helped rebut the presumption that this was merely a domestic arrangement without legal consequences. Therefore, it was held that a legally binding contract existed, and the plaintiff was entitled to a one-third share of the prize money.

References:

• https://www.london.ac.uk/sites/default/files/study-guides/contract-law-study-guide.pdf
• https://www.casrilanka.com/casl/images/stories/EDBA/4%20contract%20law%208-12-2019%20notes.pdf

---

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

• Lens v Devonshire Club (1914): A Quick Legal Summary
• Peck v Lateu (1973): A Quick Case Summary
• Roufos v Brewster (1971) 2 SASR 218: A Legal Case Summary