Balfour V. Balfour is one of the landmark cases of English contract law. It is based on the doctrine of intention, the intention of both the parties to form a contract. Lord Justice Atkin said that domestic commitments are not within the jurisdiction of contract law. The main point made was that if a promise is a contract, then would it be enforceable by law?

Facts

• Mr. Balfour was used to live in Ceylon (now in sri lanka) with his wife, Mrs Balfour
• In 1915 during his leave they both went to England.
• Where Mrs. Balfour developed a disease called Rheumoid Arthritis and her doctor suggested that she should stay in England, as the climatic conditions in Sri Lanka are not favorable.
• As the boat to Sri Lanka in which Mr. Balfour was about to sail, he made a promise to Mrs. Balfour to pay $30 to her every month until she comes back.
• After some time they both grew apart and Mr. Balfour said to her in a letter that it was best if they remain apart.
• However, in march 1918 Mrs Balfour sued Mr. Balfour to keep up with the money payment every month.
• In july she got decree of nisi and in December she received an order for alimony.
• At first instance judge Charles sargant of the lower courts was in the favor of plaintiff.
• He stated that it was the obligation of Mr. Balfour to support his Wife.

Issues raised in the case

• Did Mr. Balfour ever intended to enter into any sort of agreement with his wife, Mrs. Balfour?
• Is the agreement between Mr. And Mrs. Balfour valid in nature at all?
• Does the contract between husband and wife enforceable in court of law?

Judgement

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 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 honour to continue it so long as he was in a position to do so. The wife on the other hand, so far as I can see, made no bargain at all. That is in my opinion sufficient to dispose of the case”.

The duke LJ place a weight on the fact that they were not yet divorced, when the promise was made as husband and wife. The parties were husband and wife, and subject to all the conditions, in that relationship. He says that in a marriage there are many promises made but it is impossible to deem these promises as contractual. What was said in wife part was that ,she gave consideration to her husband to do whatever was fit in his discretion, the giving up of that which was not a right is not a consideration. The proposition that mutual promises made between husband and wife give a cause for an action of the contract, seems to be fruitful source of dissenting and quarrelling, which would lead to unlimited litigation. It is understood that there was no foundation of consideration moving from his wife to husband which was sufficient to sustain it as a contract .and appeal was allowed

Lord Justice Atkin had a different approach, emphasizing that there was no intention to affect legal relation. That was because it was a domestic relationship and the wife had the onus to show the proof but she did not rebut the presumption. Basically there was no intention to form a contract, which talks about the doctrine of intention, LJ Atkin stated in his judgement. A contract depends on the intentions of both the parties to create a legal relationship in order to validate a contract. Whereas if a party wanted to create a legal relationship or not, it depends after examination of circumstances under which the contract was executed.

Conclusion

After reading and understanding the case and judgements we can conclude that, mere promises between husband and wife or a family member is not considered to be a binding contract and are not enforceable by law. For a contract to be enforceable by law both the parties should show their intentions to come to a agreement and form a contract. However in this case, looking at the circumstances there was no intention to come into the contract on the Wife’s part. Owing to all this Mr Balfour cannot be sued by Mrs. Balfour. Often this case is seen in conjunction with Merritt V Merritt, in this case the couple had a estranged relationship  when the agreement was made, so in this scenario, any sort of agreement between them was to be considered that of legal in nature.

Reference

legalserviceindia.com

en.wikipedia.org

www.lawyered .in

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.