A Level Law Practice Exam 2025 – 400 Free Practice Questions to Pass the Exam

The case of Merritt v. Merritt illustrates the principle of distinguishing in contract law due to its focus on how courts can differentiate between similar cases based on their specific factual contexts and the intentions of the parties involved. In this particular case, the court examined whether a legally binding agreement existed between a husband and wife regarding the sale of their house.

The key here is that the court distinguished this case from Balfour v. Balfour. In Balfour, the court found that there was no intention to create legal relations in a domestic setting when the husband promised to pay his wife an allowance while they were separated. However, in Merritt, the couple was separated, and there was written evidence that showed the husband's intention to create a legally binding obligation. Thus, the court held that a contract did exist in Merritt due to the unique circumstances.

This clear distinction highlights how the courts will consider the specific facts and external evidence of intention in different scenarios, which is core to understanding the principle of distinguishing in contract law.