Legal Case Summary
Parker v Clark [1960] 1 WLR 286
Family agreement to share home; whether intention to create legal relations
Facts
The Clarks were an elderly married couple. Mrs Parker was Mrs Clark’s niece, and Mr Clark suggested she and her husband move into their home with them. Mr Parker supported the idea but expressed concern that it would mean their selling their own house. Mr Clark wrote to Mr Parker stating the Clarks would bequeath their home to Mrs Parker, her sister and her daughter on their death. The Parkers sold their home and moved in with the Clarks. The Clarks told the Parkers the arrangement was not working, and they would have to move out. The Parkers brought an action for breach of contract.
Issues
The Parkers argued the agreement was contractual in nature, and was intended to be legally binding. In reliance on it being a legally binding agreement, the Parkers sold their home and shared the running costs of the Clarks’ home. They contended the Clarks were in breach of this agreement by wrongfully giving them notice to quit. The Clarks denied the existence of any agreement. Even if there had been an agreement, it was insufficient to satisfy s40(1) Law of Property Act 1925 because it was not in writing. They also claimed the terms of the purported agreement were too vague to form a valid contract.
Decision / Outcome
The Parkers were successful in their claim. The language used in the letters and the surrounding circumstances indicated that both parties intended the agreement to have legal force. Mr Clark’s letter was sufficient to satisfy s40(1) Law of Property Act 1925 and amounted to a contractual offer. The Parkers were entitled to damages for the loss of the prospect of inheritance and the loss of the value of the benefit of living in the house.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Parker v Clark [1960] 1 WLR 286. However, readers should note one important statutory development: section 40(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, discussed in this case, was repealed and replaced by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Section 2 imposes a stricter requirement than the old section 40, requiring that contracts for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land be made in writing (not merely evidenced in writing) and signed by both parties. The outcome of a case with similar facts arising today might therefore differ at the formal requirements stage, though the broader contractual principles regarding intention to create legal relations and part performance remain relevant (the equitable doctrine of part performance, which also featured in section 40 case law, was also abolished by the 1989 Act). The case remains a valid and frequently cited authority on the question of intention to create legal relations in family or domestic arrangements where the circumstances rebut the usual presumption against such intention.
