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.