Summary Factual Background
2014 January. Plaintiff bought an investment called “Rebuilding America” (RA) from the 2 nd
Defendant. No oral agreement was set up between the said Defendant and the Plaintiff
regarding the promise of return of principal and interest if RA did not realize.
2015 January. Plaintiff received the first return on the RA.
2016 January. The 2 nd Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the delay on the final return of
RA by email. And to calm her, I assured her that the delay was temporary, eventually things
would get back on track and her investment was safe failure to which I would pay her back.
2018 May. Plaintiff secretly recorded a meeting held with the 2 nd Defendant in a restaurant.
2020 January. RA is still on going.
The jist of the matter is that the Plaintiff alleges that there exists a binding oral agreement
entered into on January 2014 on the return of the subject principal amount and interest, and
that this oral agreement was further confirmed by the 2 nd Defendant’s email of 2016 January
Statement of Issues
1. Whether there exists a legally binding oral agreement between the Plaintiff and the 2 nd
Defendant made on January 2014 as to the repayment of the Plaintiff’s principal amount
and interest.
2. Whether the email of January 2016 constitutes a legally binding agreement between the
Plaintiff and the 2 nd Defendant as to the repayment of the Plaintiff’s principal amount
and interest.
Whether there exists a legally binding oral agreement between the Plaintiff and the 2 nd
Defendant made on January 2014 as to the repayment of the Plaintiff’s principal
amount and interest.
In summary, the rules of contract dictate that a legally binding contract should have:
I. The intent to create legally enforceable relations. Each party must have the intent to
establish a legal relationship. Specifically on oral contract, the parties’ verbal
exchange cannot be a simple dialogue.
II. Valid offer: A valid offer is a declaration of willingness to enter into a contract on
certain terms with the understanding that, if accepted, the transaction will be legally
enforceable. If the statement was only an invitation to make an offer, or if the offer
has been previously rejected, the offer will no longer be legitimate.
III. A valid acceptance requires that the offeree accept the terms of the offer exactly as
they were presented. This can be done either in writing or orally.
IV. Consideration: the parties are required to exchange promises.
V. Capacity for contract formation: In general, this prohibits adolescents, drunk
individuals, and people with severe mental and cognitive impairments.
From the above, I do recognize that oral agreements are indeed enforceable but as another
contract law principle would dictate; the person asserting a claim must provide proof, when a
person is obligated to show the existence of a fact, he or she bears the burden of proof, in a
dispute or action, the burden of proof falls on the party that would lose if neither side
presented any evidence. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is that beyond reasonable
doubt while that in civil cases is by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the
Plaintiff is alleging that there existed an oral agreement of January 2014, the burden of
proving this falls on them and in this instance, the Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard
required by the court to prove their claim.
The Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4 th Edition, Volume 17, at paras 13 and 14 states “The
legal burden is the burden of proof which remains constant throughout a trial; it is the
burden of establishing the facts and contentions which will support a party’s case. If at the
conclusion of the trial he has failed to establish these to the appropriate standard, he will
lose. The legal burden of proof normally rests upon the party desiring the court to take
action; thus, a claimant must satisfy the court or tribunal that the conditions which entitle
him to an award have been satisfied. In respect of a particular allegation, the burden lies
upon the party for whom substantiation of that particular allegation is an essential of his
case. There may therefore be separate burdens in a case with separate issues.”
“preponderance of the evidence is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a
scale slightly is the criteria or requirement for preponderance of the evidence” Karch v.
Karch, 885 A.2d 535.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), it was stated “The requirement of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt has this vital role in our criminal procedure for cogent reasons. The accused
during a criminal prosecution has at stake interest of immense importance, both because of
the possibility that he may lose his liberty upon conviction and because of the certainty that
he would be stigmatized by the conviction. Accordingly, a society that values the good name
and freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime when
there is reasonable doubt about his guilt. As we said in Speiser v. Randall, supra, 357 U.S., at
525—526, 78 S.Ct., at 1342: ‘There is always in litigation a margin of error, representing
error in factfinding, which both parties must take into account. Where one party has at stake
an interest of transcending value—as a criminal defendant his liberty—this margin of error is
reduced as to him by the process of placing on the other party the burden of * * * persuading
the factfinder at the conclusion of the trial of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Due
process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the
burden of * * * convincing the factfinder of his guilt.’ To this end, the reasonable-doubt
standard is indispensable, for it ‘impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a
subjective state of certitude of the facts in issue.’ Dorsen & Rezneck, In Re Gault and the
Future of Juvenile Law, 1 Family Law Quarterly, No. 4, pp. 1, 26 (1967).
Moreover, use of the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable to command the respect and
confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law. It is critical that the moral
force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt
whether innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every
individual going about his ordinary affairs have confidence that his government cannot
adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt
with utmost certainty”
It is therefore upon the Plaintiff to prove these allegations. I term the Plaintiff’s statement as
an allegation since I deny having made an oral agreement on January 2014 as to the
repayment of the Plaintiff’s principal amount and interest.
Whether the email of January 2016 constitutes a legally binding agreement between the
Plaintiff and the 2 nd Defendant as to the repayment of the Plaintiff’s principal amount
and interest.
I will redirect the courts to the elements of a valid contract listed above and specifically on
the intention to be legally bound element. Intent to develop legal relations signifies a party’s
intent to enter into a legally binding contract. It demonstrates that the parties are willing to
accept the legal consequences of the agreement, indicating that their serious intentions to be
legally bound. The lack of intention to create legal relations renders a contract unenforceable
in law.
Without the desire to create legal relations, the parties to a contract cannot sue for its
enforcement. Without the aim to create legal connections, a contract becomes a simple
promise. In general, the law presumes that family and social contracts should not be
enforceable.
In (Balfour/Balfour, 2 KB 571, 2)., After getting married in England, a husband (defendant)
and wife (plaintiff) moved to Ceylon/Sri Lanka, where the husband worked. The wife
decided to remain in England for medical reasons after a trip back to England, while the
husband went to Ceylon alone. Before departing, he pledged to provide her with a monthly
stipend. Eventually, they chose to live permanently apart. She sued him for alimony and was
awarded it; she then sued him under contract law for the monthly stipend he had promised.
The court held that no legally binding contract existed, there was no intention to establish
legal connections, and the wife had offered no consideration.
In Blue v Ashley, this case involved a lawsuit filed against businessman Michael Ashley.
Mr. Blue asserted that he provided business consulting services for Mr. Ashley’s company,
Sports Direct Group. Mr. Blue testified that, at a pub meeting with Mr. Ashley and three
other Sports Direct representatives, Mr. Ashley (after consuming at least 8 pints of beer)
promised Mr. Blue a £15 million bonus if he could ensure that Sports Direct’s share price rose
above £8 per share. All parties agreed that the bar gathering had been a casual social
occasion. Mr. Blue asserted that Mr. Ashley’s intention was to be legally bound, and he made
him an offer, which he accepted. Subsequently, Sports Direct’s share price did actually
surpass £8 per share. When Mr. Ashley refused to pay Mr. Blue the £15 million, Mr. Blue
initiated High Court proceedings to reclaim the amount. Mr. Justice Leggatt, delivering
decision in the High Court, dismissed Mr. Blue’s claim. This was due to the fact that the
parties did not intend for Mr. Ashley’s very expensive pledge to Mr. Blue to be legally
binding. The judge made several points, the most significant of which was that a night spent
drinking at a bar was an unusual venue for formal contract negotiations. In addition, Mr.
Blue was unable to achieve his objective of boosting the share price above £8. Moreover, in
any case, Mr. Ashley’s character would not have permitted him to make such a guarantee. In
light of the largely social nature of the discussion, and after applying the necessary objective
test, the judge found that the only fair inference was that Mr. Ashley’s words amounted to
nothing more than "banter." As a result, Mr. Blue was unable to rely on Mr. Ashley’s
remarks as a legally binding agreement.
It is my case that the Plaintiff and I shared a century old friendship and when she consulted
me on the disappointment she had on the RA, I wrote that email will the sole purpose of
comforting the Plaintiff as my friend, and did not intend to be legally bound by it. The
correspondence was made as between friends rather than on a business basis. Further, there
was no consideration offered by the Plaintiff herein to have constituted a contract. First, the
Plaintiff should prove the enforceability of the email as a legal contract between us. Second, I
would like to categorically state that I did not intend to be legally bound by the email of
January 2016. Third, no consideration was given by the Plaintiff. As such, that email cannot
be enforced against me as a legally binding agreement.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )