[1969] 2 All ER 616
Court of Appeal
Mrs Jones suggested to her daughter, Mrs Padavatton, then resident in the USA, that she should go to England and read for the English Bar. Mrs Padavatton was at first reluctant to do this since she had a good job in Washington DC. Mrs Jones offered her daughter $200 (£42) per month maintenance if she would read for the Bar. Mrs Padavatton accepted her mother's offer and started the Bar course in November 1962. Then in 1964 Mrs Jones offered to buy a house in London so that Mrs Padavatton and her son could live there and let off the rest of the house to tenants so that the tenants rents would provide maintenance for Mrs Padavatton in lieu of the £42 per month. In 1967 Mrs Jones claimed possession of the house from Mrs Padavatton; Mrs Padavatton claimed that Mrs Jones was bound by the two agreements.
The issue before the court was whether Mrs Jones and Mrs Padavatton had intended either, or both, of the agreements to be legally binding.
Danckwerts LJ
... There is no doubt that the daughter gave consideration for a promise by her mother to provide maintenance at the rate of £42 per month so long as she was reading for the Bar in England by giving up her job and her other advantages in Washington, and by reading for the Bar...
Before us a great deal of time was spent on discussions as to what were the terms of the arrangements between the parties, and it seemed to me that the further the discussions went, the more obscure and uncertain the terms alleged became. The acceptable duration of the daughter's studies was not finally settled, I think. There was a lack of evidence on the matter, and the members of the court were induced to supply suggestions based on their personal knowledge. At any rate, two questions emerged for argument: (i) Were the arrangements (such as they were) intended to produce legally binding agreements, or were they simply family arrangements depending for their fulfilment on good faith and trust, and not legally enforceable by legal proceedings?...
Counsel for the daughter argued strenuously for the view that the parties intended to create legally binding contracts. He relied on the old case of Shadwell v Shadwell and Parker v Clark. Counsel for the mother argued for the contrary view that there were no binding obligations, and that if there were they were too uncertain for the court to enforce. His stand-by was Balfour v Balfour. The principles involved are very well discussed in Cheshire and Fifoot on Contract (6th Edn.). Of course, there is no difficulty, if they so intend, in members of families entering into legally binding contracts in regard to family affairs. A competent equity draftsman would, if properly instructed, have no difficulty in drafting such a contract. But there is possibly in family affairs a presumption against such an intention (which, of course, can be rebutted). I would refer to Atkin LJ's magnificent exposition in regard to such arrangements in Balfour v Balfour.
There is no doubt that this case is a most difficult one, but I have reached a conclusion that the present case is one of those family arrangements which depend on the good faith of the promises which are made and are not intended to be rigid, binding agreements. Balfour v Balfour was a case of husband and wife, but there is no doubt that the same principles apply to dealings between other relations, such as father and son and daughter and mother. This, indeed, seems to me a compelling case. The mother and the daughter seem to have been on very good terms before 1967. The mother was arranging for a career for the daughter which she hoped would lead to success. This involved a visit to England in conditions which could not be wholly foreseen. What was required was an arrangement which was to be financed by the mother and was such as would be adaptable to circumstances, as it in fact was. The operation about the house was, in my view, not a completely fresh arrangement, but an adaptation of the mother's financial assistance to the daughter due to the situation which was found to exist in England. It was not a stiff contractual operation any more than the original arrangement.
In the result, of course, on this view, the daughter cannot resist the mother's rights as the owner of the house to the possession of which the mother is entitled...