Balfour v.

Balfour, 1919 2KB 571

FACT OF THE CASE:
In the case of Balfour v. Balfour,1919
Mr. Balfour is a Petitioner and Mrs. Balfour is a respondent. Mr. Balfouris a engineer and was
employed on a government job and he live with his wife Mrs. Balfour in Ceylon, Sri Lanka.
During the holidays in 1915, They went to England. But unfortunately during the holidays Mrs.
Balfour fell ill and she required urgent medical care. She received advice from her doctor to stay
in England. She can't travel right now because of illness. Then they both decide and make an
agreement that Mr. Balfour return to Ceylon, Sri Lanka and Mrs. Balfour and his wife Mrs.
Balfour will stay back until she recovers from her illness. They also decide that at that time Mr.
Balfour will pay his wife 30 pounds of maintenance each month until everything goes into
place, Until she recovers and gets back to Ceylon. This understanding was made when their
relationship was good, but the relationship later soured. After he returned to Ceylon, he wrote a
letter to her that it would be better to make their separation permanent. The parties then divorced
and a question was raised about whether the agreement was binding and soon. After Ms. Balfour
sued him for the restitution of his conjugal rights and for support equal to the sum that her
husband had agreed to send. In March 1918, Ms. Balfour took him to court to follow the monthly
payments of £30.
In 1919, Balfour v. Balfour gave birth to the intention to create legal relations doctrine in
contract law.1

ISSUE RAISED IN THE COURT:

1. Was there a valid contract between Mr. and Ms. Balfour?
2. Did Mr. Balfour ever intend to enter into any sort of agreement with his wife, Mrs.
Balfour?

1 contract law , https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-analysis-of-balfour-vs-balfour-1919-via-irac-

method/19819
CONTENTION AT THE PART OF APPEALENT i.e. Mr. Balfour
In Balfour vs Balfour, Mr Balfour's promise to provide his wife that he will pay monthly
expenses when his wife is in England and she is not well so she can't come back to Ceylon, Sri
Lanka and he promises to give her 30 pounds. It was a domestic arrangement and not a legal
agreement, so the husband Mr. Balfour didn't have any intention of creating a legal agreement.

CONTENTION AT THE PART OF RESPONDENT i.e. Mrs. Balfour

In Balfour vs Balfour the wife Mrs. Balfour is deemed to have received the money given at the
time the husband entered into a domestic contract. On contract he offered his wife £30 and the
wife accepted and remained in England.

RATIONALE:
Justice Warrington observed, in his view, that the agreement between the spouses in this case
was just a friendly agreement. He believed that it was both expressly and implicitly possible to
determine that there was no intention of creating legal relations. when the agreement was entered
into, since there was no bargaining between the wife and her on the amount to be provided. And
it was assumed that the husband would pay for as long as he could. In conclusion, he considered
that it was an ordinary social and family agreement between spouses without enforceability due
to its triviality.
Lord Justice Duke added some elements to those comments. He observed that the basis of their
communication was their personal relationship that could not be part of their suit. At the same
time, the agreement was reached at a time when they were amicable and not in conflict.
Furthermore, no consideration was given by the wife to the other partner and no promise was
made by the husband to his wife for such a payment. So there was no contract between them.
Finally, Lord Justice Atkin pointed out that such agreements of a domestic nature do not
comply with the enforceability and legal relationship requirements of contract law. It is well
known that the most common forms of agreement that are not considered contractual are those
between spouses. The only consideration that circulates among them is that of love and affection
which has no juridical value and thus does not meet the essential of having consideration in order
to form a valid contract. The breach of such an agreement does not therefore entail any legal
consequences.
The features of the agreement were concluded to be purely and completely domestic in nature.
Lord Justice Atkin held that when a husband and wife enter into an agreement, they have no
intention of establishing a legal relationship. Both parties must intend to create a legal
relationship while concluding an agreement, only then it becomes binding in court. Furthermore,
a court will never take into account spousal agreements in the course of everyday life. The
agreement did not fall under the contract field.
As mentioned, the agreement in this case is not legally binding, the agreement made in the
family is not counted in the law of contract; there is no contract between husband and wife.
agreements entered into between spouses to provide capital or financial benefits are not binding.
Generally the parties to the marriage arrange for personal and domestic expenses, but there is
never any legal instinct in those things.
The Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that there was not a binding agreement.
Therefore, the Balfour legislation makes it very clear that the legal intent to enter into a contract
is very necessary. The Balfour Law primarily moves around the concept of legal intent as the
basis and for most of the need to validate a contract. This was the ratio decidendi of the case.
Whether the parties intended to create a legal relationship is determined by examining the
circumstances under which the contract was performed.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:

In the first instance, Justice Sargant had concluded that the claims made by Mrs. Balfour are
valid and that Mr. Balfour should have the right to pay her the maintenance he promised to pay
her. Finally, Mr. Balfour appealed to an appeal court. In the Court of Appeal, it was conducted
by the judiciary, Warrington LJ, Duke LJ, Atkin LJ that it is not binding in a court of law.. Atkin
LJ observed it because of its domestic nature. While Warrington LJ and Duke LJ did so because
they questioned whether Ms.Balfour had provided her opinion. The doctrine of intent to create a
legal relationship was relied on by Atkin LJ primarily.
It was stated that the doctrine had to do with public policy and that the national agreement had
nothing to do with it. The court cannot engage in such minor issues relating to personal and
family agreements.
INFERENCE:
In my opinion, I agree with the judgment set out. As a spouse, they had to conclude a contract if
they really intended to create a legal relationship.. This case should be followed up as the leading
case. The opinion of the court is also right because they made the contract based on their mutual
confidence and love. The Court will clarify that the agreement entered into by the spouse is not
legally binding as they made the contract based on their trust and all that comes after will be
considered family matters.

REFERENCE:
● Balfour V Balfour,1919 2KB 571
● The Separation of Contract and Promise
● https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Balfour_v_Balfour
● The Indian Contract Act,1872
● Contract-I by Dr. R.K Bangia
● View of Lord Justice Duke
● View of Lord Justice Atkin
● View of Justice Warrington

Esha Gupta
B.A LLB 2nd Sem
AMITY UNIVERSITY, GWALIOR