The Pros And Cons Of Contract

A contract can be legally binding with its written format. However, a social or domestic agreement conduct by verbally cannot be enforce and claim.
For an agreement to become a legally binding contract, all parties must have intention to create legal relationship. It means parties who enter into a legal agreement must have business relation to make the agreement enforceable.
In case of Errington v Errington Wood , ”Father bought house for son and daughter-in-law. Father paid deposit and desire them to pay mortgage installments. After Father died, state trying to get rid of them .“ The court held that the couple not entitled to own the house unless they paid mortgage installments off.
For a unilateral offer, it cannot be cancelled if formed,

Domestic agreement cannot be legally binding because it is verbally agreement, unless it is written agreement written clearly all term and condition of contract.
In cases of Errington v Errington Wood, it is considered as commercial contract which it can be enforce and legally binding. However, in cases of Jones v Padavatton, it is a domestic agreement between family member which is not considered a contract and it cannot be held in court.
Moreover, in case of Simpkins v Pays [1955], “a family made agreement if any of them won competition run, they would share the winnings between them. The grandmother refused to do as promises when she win. “The court held that there was a binding contract. In the point of law, the family connection is considered as party to the contract even parties no intention to create legal relations because they had made an agreement between themselves even if it is a domestic agreement make are between family member.
Consideration is anything of value promised to another when implied a contract. It is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged.Under section 2(d) of contract act 1950 define as promise has done something promise to

Hillas wants to exercise the option but Arcos said the contract was cancelled. Arcos put forward the claim that the option "was an agreement and so was unenforceable." The court held the option contract was valid. In application to the facts, the court ruled that fair specification was clear to invalid the contract. Both parties only conduct bargain by conducting but not any agreement, so the agreement is invalid. Moreover, in the cases of Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc,Baird Textile Holdings Ltd had supplied clothes. M&S said they were cancelling their order. Baird sued M&S that they should give reasonable notice.. Baird argued that a contract should be implied through their bargain. Court held the contract could not be implied.
There are no written agreement between the parties to make bargain, contracts are only implied when it is written clearly quantity and quality in contract. Such agreement to keep up the purchase of clothes would be too uncertain, contract which are vague in its term is considered uncertainty. However, in the case of G Scammell & Nephew Ltd v Ouston, the contract must have contain certain condition to ensure the validity of