The court found an intention to create legal relations and therefore an enforceable contract among the members of a family to share the winnings in a newspaper competition which the family regularly entered.
Sellers J said: ‘It may well be there are many family associations where some sort of rough and ready statement is made which would not, in a proper estimate of the circumstances, establish a contract which was contemplated to have legal consequence, but I do not so find here. I think that in the present case there was a mutuality of the arrangement between the parties.’
 1 WLR 975
- Cited – Robertson v Anderson IHCS 5-Dec-2002
The parties had agreed to share any winnings from their Bingo activities. One sought to reject the contract as an unenforceable gaming contract.
Held: It had been suggested that there had been no intention to create legally binding . .
Times 02-Jan-03,  ScotCS 312
- Cited – In re Segelman (dec’d) ChD 1996
The burden of proof which falls on a disappointed beneficiary who seeks rectification of the will, saying that the will did not give effect to a testator’s intentions, is an exacting one.
Chadwick J said: ‘Although the standard of proof . .
 Ch 171,  2 WLR 173,  3 All ER 676
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2020; Ref: scu.181864