‘Would a Haribo rent be a sensible consideration?’
A lawyer mum has taken to Twitter to share a funny bedroom ‘contract’ between her son and daughter, and different legal professionals have given their ideas on its “legality”.
Jodi Newton, a medical negligence solicitor at Osbornes Legislation, tweeted: “Thoughts on the legality of this contract I have found between my 11 year old son and 9 year old daughter concerning an agreement reached about who takes the loft room in our new house?”
The three-clause kiddy ‘contract’ arms possession of the loft in Newton’s new home to her son, and as soon as signed, her daughter can not say that her brother doesn’t personal it.
Ideas on the legality of this contract I’ve discovered between my 11 yr previous son and 9 yr previous daughter regarding an settlement reached about who takes the loft room in our new home? pic.twitter.com/icBJYAcIHt
— Jodi Newton (@JodiNewtonLaw) November 30, 2021
Twitter legal professionals joked that the typed word had no consideration (“both literally and metaphorically”) or witness and that there could also be “some form of duress due to the ages of the parties” concerned. One Twitter consumer wrote: “Would a Haribo rent be a sensible consideration?”
No consideration paid, no witness, no proof of title to the loft room. Possibly some type of duress because of the ages of the events. I’ll act in your daughter if want be, professional bono.
— Rob Hailstone (@RobcHailstone) December 1, 2021
Different legal professionals piled in giving their ‘advice’:
S is masterfully taking care of the pursuits of her shopper (herself) by: no consideration (ergo no contract), not executing this as a deed (ergo not binding in any other case), and excluding J from signing it (s2(3) LP(MP)A 1989). She will/will say in future that J does NOT personal stated loft.
— Burhan Mallik (@b_mallek) November 30, 2021
I feel additionally, per Balfour v Balfour, S may argue there was no intention to create authorized relations between them being household though J could argue that they don’t seem to be dwelling in amity and there’s a written settlement as in Merritt v Merritt.
— Omar Salem (@OmarSalem) December 1, 2021
There have been additional amusing strategies from legal professionals that the youngsters ought to maintain the room as joint tenants or that the daughter ought to ensure a “transfer undertaking when her brother goes to university (to study law)”. One other Twitter consumer instructed that they check it in court “with Mummy LJ and Daddy LJ presiding together with the President, Grandma LJ”. Others stated that the dad and mom taking on the brand new room would represent — cue nerdy contract legislation joke — “frustration”.
Simon Mallett of KBW Barristers Chambers tweeted: “Unreadable signature — instantly deniable and unclear what is being offered — masterly agreement — they both have a very bright (and worrying) career ahead.”