[1955] 3 All ER 10
Chester Assizes
The facts are stated in the judgement of Sellers J.
Sellers J
Happily this is an unusual type of case to come before a court of law, and it arises out of what seems to be a popular occupation of the public -- competing in a competition in a Sunday newspaper. In this particular case there was a contest, No. 397, in the 'Sunday Empire News' of June 27, 1954, a competition whereby readers were invited to place, in order of merit, eight fashions, or articles of attire. The plaintiff and the defendant, along with the defendant's grand-daughter, sent in a coupon with three forecasts on it. The middle line of the second forecast chanced to be successful, as appeared in the publication of the same newspaper on Sunday, July 4, 1954. This coupon won the prize of £750, being apparently the only coupon containing what was said to be the correct forecast, and this action is brought to recover one-third of that amount, £250.
The plaintiff had been living in the defendant's house from some time in 1950, since some six months after the defendant's husband died. The defendant, who gave evidence here, was a lady of some eighty-three years of age. The plaintiff was much younger. They lived together in harmony, the plaintiff paying a weekly sum for her board and lodging to the defendant...
... The substantial matter was, on what basis were these forecasts being made?
On each of the occasions when the plaintiff made out the coupon during those seven or eight weeks, she put down the forecasts in the way which I have indicated, and entered in the appropriate place on the coupon 'Mrs. Pays, 11, Trevor Street, Wrexham', that is to say, the defendant's name and address, as if the coupon had been the defendant's. There were, in fact, three forecasts on each coupon, and I accept the plaintiff's evidence that, when the matter first came to be considered, what was said, when they were going to do it in that way, was: 'We will go shares', or words to that effect. Whether that was said by the plaintiff or by the defendant does not really matter. 'Shares' was the word used, and I do not think anything very much more specific was said. I think that that was the basis of the arrangement; and it may well be that the plaintiff was right when she said in her evidence, that the defendant said: 'You're lucky, May, and if we win we will go shares'.
... Although the coupon sent in the defendant's name was successful, the competition was not, in fact, won by the forecast of either the plaintiff or the defendant, because the middle line was composed, not by either of the parties, but by the defendant's grand-daughter. The defendant's case involves that, whichever forecast won -- whether it was the plaintiff's or the defendant's, or the grand-daughter's -- the whole prize was to go to the defendant. I think that that is highly improbable.
On the finding of fact that the plaintiff's evidence is right as to what was said about the shares, learned counsel for the defendant not unnaturally said: 'Even if that is so, the court cannot enforce this contract unless the arrangement made at the time was one which was intended to give rise to legal consequences'. It may well be there are many family associations where some sort of rough and ready statement is made which would not, in a proper estimate of the circumstances, establish a contract which was contemplated to have legal consequences, but I do not so find here. I think that in the present case there was a mutuality in the arrangement between the parties. It was not very formal, but certainly it was, in effect, agreed that every week the forecast should go in in the name of the defendant, and that if there was success, no matter who won, all should share equally. It seems to be the implication from, or the interpretation of, what was said that this was in the nature of a very informal syndicate so that they should all get the benefit of success... [T]he plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement to share, and, accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to one-third. I so find and give judgment for the amount of £250.