Can she sue me for not sewing her dress?
Dear Mirror Lawyer, Benedicta and I have been friends for four years. As a good friend, she supports my dream of becoming a fashion designer by motivating me and pushing me to pursue it.
I decided, out of the goodness of my heart, to sew three dresses for her.
I told her I was grateful for her constant encouragement and that I would gift her three dresses to be sewn by me. I asked her to send pictures of the dress styles she wanted, and she sent them via iMessage.
I designed and sewed only two of these dresses because the third dress was a bit complicated to sew.
Benedicta was satisfied with the two dresses and kept pressuring me to deliver the third, claiming she had planned to wear it to a friend called Kofi’s wedding in Paris within the next three months.
She threatens to sue me for the dress if she must.
I thought it was a joke at first, but since she hasn’t spoken to me in a while and is now hostile, I am starting to take the threat seriously. Can Benedicta successfully sue me for the third dress?
Nancy Bekoe, Tarkwa
Dear Nancy. It is quite unfortunate that what seemed like an attempt to do good has rather resulted in an unpleasant situation.
The truth is, for Benedicta to successfully sue you, she must prove that there was a valid contract between you. A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two parties.
Where there is an agreement, which is not legally enforceable, there is no contract. The elements of a valid contract include a valid offer, acceptance, capacity, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.
Thus, to prove that there was a valid contract, Benedicta must prove that you made an offer which she accepted and that both of you had the capacity to enter into the contract, that is, both of you are of 18 years and of sound mind, and intended for the agreement to be legally binding.
For an agreement to be binding, there must be an intention to create legal relations.
This means that before entering the contract, the parties must have intended that if a problem arises under the contract, they would resort to the courts.
In determining whether there was an intention to create legal relations, the contract may have stated, or it may have been said expressly, that both parties intended to create legal relations.
Where not expressly stated, the subject matter of the contract and the relationship of the parties are factors to consider in determining whether there was an intention to create legal relations.
Where the contract was made in a domestic setting, that is, where it was made between family and friends, it is generally presumed that there is no intention to create legal relations.
Domestic contracts are generally unenforceable under the law because they are often based on soft promises by relatives or friends without any intent to make the agreement legally binding.
In the English case of Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, because the wife was unable to return with the husband to his place of work in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) due to her illness, the husband agreed to pay her £30 per month while they were apart.
Later, the marriage broke up, and the wife sued the husband for his failure to make the promised payments.
The Court of Appeal held that her action must fail because domestic arrangements of this kind are not intended by the parties to be legally binding.
Again, in Jones v Padavatton [1969] 2 All ER 616, a mother, who lived in the West Indies, promised her daughter, who was at the time working in the United States, that if she (the daughter) would go to England to study for the Bar, she (the mother) would pay her $200 per month.
The daughter agreed to this arrangement. Later, the mother bought a house where the daughter would live, supporting herself by letting out some of the rooms. This replaced the previous monthly payment arrangement.
After five years with her daughter, who was still unsuccessful in the Bar examinations, the mother sued for possession of the house. The daughter’s defence was based on a contract between herself and her mother.
The court held that there was no contract between them, and the mother was entitled to succeed. At the time the first arrangements were made, the mother and daughter were, and always had been, very close.
Therefore, neither party at that time intended to enter into a legally binding contract, because the daughter was prepared to trust the mother to honour her promise of support, just as the mother no doubt trusted the daughter to study for the Bar with diligence, and to get through her examinations as early as she could.
This is, however, subject to certain exceptions and the facts of each case. As was the case in Hammond v Ainooson, where the contract was made in a domestic setting but the contract was characterised by a commercial flavour, an intention to create legal relations is presumed.
It must be noted that there will be deemed to be an enforceable contract if there is objective evidence to support such a conclusion.
Applying the rules above to the facts of this case, you offered to design three dresses for Benedicta. She accepted the offer by sending you her preferred designs. Both of you are also above 21 years of age.
However, there was no consideration. Based on the rules above, it appears you made the offer after Benedicta motivated or encouraged you.
This wasn't done in exchange for your promise to design three dresses for her. It was an act of friendship.
Again, there was no intention to create legal relations.
This is because, taking into consideration the subject matter of the case and the fact that the contract was made in a domestic setting with no commercial flavour, it is presumed that there was no intention to create legal relations.
Benedicta is, therefore, not likely to succeed if she sues you. A valid contract was not created, so the promise you made to design three dresses for her cannot be enforced in court.
