The case of Balfour vs. Balfour dealt with whether an agreement between a husband and wife to provide monthly support payments was an enforceable legal contract. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no intention to create a legally binding contract, as agreements between spouses are generally considered domestic arrangements rather than contracts. The court found that the husband's promise of payments was intended to be an honorable obligation rather than a legally enforceable agreement, and the wife did not intend to enter a bargain. This established a presumption that spousal agreements are not contracts unless there is clear intent to be legally bound.
The case of Balfour vs. Balfour dealt with whether an agreement between a husband and wife to provide monthly support payments was an enforceable legal contract. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no intention to create a legally binding contract, as agreements between spouses are generally considered domestic arrangements rather than contracts. The court found that the husband's promise of payments was intended to be an honorable obligation rather than a legally enforceable agreement, and the wife did not intend to enter a bargain. This established a presumption that spousal agreements are not contracts unless there is clear intent to be legally bound.
The case of Balfour vs. Balfour dealt with whether an agreement between a husband and wife to provide monthly support payments was an enforceable legal contract. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no intention to create a legally binding contract, as agreements between spouses are generally considered domestic arrangements rather than contracts. The court found that the husband's promise of payments was intended to be an honorable obligation rather than a legally enforceable agreement, and the wife did not intend to enter a bargain. This established a presumption that spousal agreements are not contracts unless there is clear intent to be legally bound.
The case of Balfour vs. Balfour dealt with whether an agreement between a husband and wife to provide monthly support payments was an enforceable legal contract. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no intention to create a legally binding contract, as agreements between spouses are generally considered domestic arrangements rather than contracts. The court found that the husband's promise of payments was intended to be an honorable obligation rather than a legally enforceable agreement, and the wife did not intend to enter a bargain. This established a presumption that spousal agreements are not contracts unless there is clear intent to be legally bound.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 8
Balfour vs.
Balfour (1919)
Introduction
Balfour vs. Balfour is a leading English contract
case dealing with intention to create legal relationships, maintenance and marriage. Here the court distinguished the case from Balfour v Balfour on the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Merritt, although still married, were estranged at the time the agreement was made and therefore any agreement between them was made with the intention to create legal relations. The ratio in this case was that Arrangements made between husbands and wives are not generally contracts as the parties do not intend to be legally bound by the agreements. Legal intention to form the contract and consideration were two important concepts which were used to know before starting this case. It is very important to discuss this case whose principles are propounded till now. FACTS Mr. Balfour was a civil engineer, and worked for the Government as the Director of Irrigation in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Mrs. Balfour was living with him. In 1915, they both came back to England during Mr. Balfours leave. But Mrs. Balfour got rheumatic arthritis. Her doctor advised her to stay, because a jungle climate was not conducive to her health. As Mr. Balfours boat was about to set sail, he promised her £30 a month until she came back to Ceylon. They drifted apart, and Mr. Balfour wrote saying it was better that they remain apart. In March 1918, Mrs. Balfour sued him to keep up with the monthly £30payments. In July she got a decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimony. ISSUES- Does the fact that they were husband and wife matter?
Was Mr. Balfour's offer intended to be legally
binding?
JUNGEMENT 1. The Court of appeal unanimously held that there was no enforceable agreement, although the depth of their reasoning differed. Warrington LJ delivered his opinion first, the core part being this passage.“ The matter really reduces itself to an absurdity when one considers it, because if we were to hold that there was a contract in this case we should have to hold that with regard to all the more or less trivial concerns of life where a wife, at the request of her husband, makes a promise to him, that is a promise which can be enforced in law. All I can say is that there is no such contract here. These two people never intended to make a bargain which could be enforced in law. The husband expressed his intention to make this payment, and he promised to make it, and was bound in honor to continue it so long as he was in a position to do so. The wife on the other hand, so far as can see, made no bargain at all. That is in my opinion sufficient to dispose of the case.
CASE ANALYSIS- The case is often cited in conjunction with Merritt v Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760;[1970] 1 WLR 1211. Here the court distinguished the case from Balfour v Balfour on the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Merritt, although still married, were estranged at the time the agreement was made and therefore any agreement between them was made with the intention to create legal relations. Both cases are often quoted examples of the principle of precedent. Regarding to the Contract Act 1950, in section 41, it tells about the person by whom promise is to be performed. Relate to this case, it said that it has no intention to create a legal relation PERSONAL VIEW In my opinion, I agree with the judgment laid out. They as the spouse needed to make a contract if they really had an intention to create the legal relation. This case should be followed as the leading case. The court’s view also is correct because they made the contract based on their mutual trust and love. Court will defined that the contract made by spouse are not legally binding as they made the contract based on their trust and anything come afterwards will be considered as family matters.
DECISION-
Decision On 25 June 1919, the English Court of Appeal
unanimously held that the agreement between the Balfours was not a legally enforceable contract but merely an ordinary domestic arrangement. There was no intention to create legal relations and Mrs. Balfour could not sue for the alleged breach of it. The Court was of the view that mutual promises made in the context of an ordinary domestic relationship between husband and wife do not usually give rise to a legally binding contract because there is no intention that they be legally binding. In other words there is no intention that one party will be able to take action for breach of the agreement by the other if they fail to perform. However, the Court did concede that there may be circumstances in which a legally binding agreement between a husband and wife may arise. According to Lord Justice Atkin (at 578): [T]here are agreements between parties which do not result in contracts within the meaning of that term in our law. The ordinary example is where two parties agree to take a walk together, or where there is an offer and an acceptance of hospitality. Nobody would suggest in ordinary circumstances that those agreements result in what we know as a contract, and one of the most usual forms of agreement which does not constitute a contract appears to me to be the arrangements which are made between husband and wife. It is quite common, and it is the natural and inevitable result of the relationship of husband and wife, that the two spouses should make arrangements between themselves - agreements such as are in dispute in this action - agreements for allowances, by which the husband agrees that he will pay to his wife a certain sum of money, per week, or per month, or per year, to cover either her own expenses or the necessary expenses of the household and of the children of the marriage, and in which the wife promises either expressly or impliedly to apply the allowance for the purpose for which it is given. To my mind those agreements, or many of them, do not result in contracts at all, and they do not result in contracts even though there may be what as between other parties would constitute consideration for the agreement. The consideration, as we know, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. That is a well-known definition, and it constantly happens, I think, that such arrangements made between husband and wife are arrangements in which there are mutual promises, or in which there is consideration in form within the definition that I have mentioned. Nevertheless they are not contracts, and they are not contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. To my mind it would be of the worst possible example to hold that agreements such as this resulted in legal obligations which could be enforced in the Courts. It would mean this, that when the husband makes his wife a promise to give her an allowance of 30s. or 2l. a week, whatever he can afford to give her, for the maintenance of the household and children, and she promises so to apply it, not only could she sue him for his failure in any week to supply the allowance, but he could sue her for nonperformance of the obligation, express or implied, which she had undertaken upon her part ... I think the onus was upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not established any contract.
SIGNIFICANCE- Significance This decision established that there is a rebuttable presumption in relation to agreements of a domestic nature that the parties did not intend to create a legally enforceable agreement. Further, it established that the onus is on the party alleging that a legally binding contract exists to rebut the presumption.
