Simpkins v Pays: 1955

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.’
Sellers J
[1955] 1 WLR 975
Cited by:

  • 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, [2002] 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 . .
    [1996] Ch 171, [1996] 2 WLR 173, [1995] 3 All ER 676

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2020; Ref: scu.181864