Join our Law Notes WhatsApp Group and stay updated with Legal and Judicial Updates

Simpkins Vs Pays

Jump to:navigation, search
HomeBrud.gifContract LawBrud.gifOfferBrud.gifSimpkins Vs Pays


  • 1955 (3) All ER 10

The Case

  • Plaintiff is living in the house of the defendant as a lodger
  • Plaintiff is as if a family member of the defendant
  • Plaintiff, defendant and defendant's grand daughter is used to sending coupons on individual names to a fashion competition appearing in the Sunday Newspaper
  • The three forecasts are sent in the name of the defendant
  • An informal agreement between the plaintiff and defendant exists that the money for postage etc. will be shares amongst the three (the defendant's grand daughter included) and who so ever wins, the prize money would be shared amongst the three in equal ratio.
  • Defendant's grand daughter was not present at the time of the agreement about the prize money and it was assumed that she will agree to the terms when she joins.
  • One day, the defendant's grand daughter wins the prize of 750 pounds.
  • She refuses to pay the 1/3rd share saying the arrangement was arrived in a family association when she is not present. She claims that no legal consequences arises as such no contract can be concluded.


  • It was held that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant to share the winning prize money is valid and accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to claim of 250 pounds being the 1/3rd of the winning prize money.

Related Cases / Recent Cases / Case Law

Related Topics