Business Law
Section B
Case study 1
The study case states that Anthony and his wife were estranged, but Anthony wanted his wife can return home. Therefore, Anthony promised to transfer the matrimonial home into her name. They had saw a lawyer, and prepared and signed a formal agreement. However, after returning home more than one year ago, Anthony refused to keep his promise, so his wife wants to get advice to get the house.
Therefore, relating to the above scenario is the case of “letter of comfort”. Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corpn Bhd (1989). In this case, the plaintiff wants the defendant gave a guarantee to them, because they had doubts about the subsidiary’s financial position. However, the defendant did not want to give the guarantee instead of giving a “letter of comfort”, it states that the plaintiff can charge a higher interest. As a result, the defendant cannot meet their liabilities, so the plaintiff sued them. The court held that the agreement was not binding because the parities did not have the intention to create legal relations. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get the money. Similarly, in the study case, Anthony is equal to the plaintiff, and his wife is equal to the defendant. The defendants both give the “letter of comfort” or promise, but refused to carry out it. The different point is case did not have the intention to create a legal relations, but Anthony’s case did. Therefore, the previous one is not binding, but the latter one is binding.
The second condition is about the family law, there are two different cases and they happened between husband and wife. The first one is Balfour v Balfour (1919), it states that the husband promised to give the wife maintenance payments, because he worked overseas. After reaching this agreement, they get married happily. Nonetheless, their relationship soured and the husband broke his promise that is to make the payments. At that time, the wife wants to enforce the agreement. In terms of this case,
Case study 1
The study case states that Anthony and his wife were estranged, but Anthony wanted his wife can return home. Therefore, Anthony promised to transfer the matrimonial home into her name. They had saw a lawyer, and prepared and signed a formal agreement. However, after returning home more than one year ago, Anthony refused to keep his promise, so his wife wants to get advice to get the house.
Therefore, relating to the above scenario is the case of “letter of comfort”. Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corpn Bhd (1989). In this case, the plaintiff wants the defendant gave a guarantee to them, because they had doubts about the subsidiary’s financial position. However, the defendant did not want to give the guarantee instead of giving a “letter of comfort”, it states that the plaintiff can charge a higher interest. As a result, the defendant cannot meet their liabilities, so the plaintiff sued them. The court held that the agreement was not binding because the parities did not have the intention to create legal relations. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get the money. Similarly, in the study case, Anthony is equal to the plaintiff, and his wife is equal to the defendant. The defendants both give the “letter of comfort” or promise, but refused to carry out it. The different point is case did not have the intention to create a legal relations, but Anthony’s case did. Therefore, the previous one is not binding, but the latter one is binding.
The second condition is about the family law, there are two different cases and they happened between husband and wife. The first one is Balfour v Balfour (1919), it states that the husband promised to give the wife maintenance payments, because he worked overseas. After reaching this agreement, they get married happily. Nonetheless, their relationship soured and the husband broke his promise that is to make the payments. At that time, the wife wants to enforce the agreement. In terms of this case,