I’m so motivated to study for Contract – which is why I’m here blogging, right? Its just that the textbook is, while informative, dense. And there are as many exceptions as there are rules – displays of goods are invitations to treat, but vending machines offer a legally binding contract.
What really surprises me about the law is, for a body of knowledge based so heavily upon reason, how unreasonable it can be at times. The laws we’ve inherited from England can be so antiquated – and not just because they date from 1840.
Balfour v Balfour (1919) – Aitken LJ reasons that family arrangements can’t be legal contracts because then a husband would never be free of promises he makes to his wife. What kind of reasoning is that? Definately not legal reasoning – its disguised social reasoning. At least the Australian High Court has the nerve to occaisionally cut through the unreasonable presumptions of precedent.
