I Year B.A./B.B.A., LL.

B – Semester - I (2021-22)

1st -Internal Assessment

SUBJECT: Legal Research and Writing

TOPIC: IRAC Analysis of Balflour V. Balflour

NAME: Chaitanya Jain

DIVISION: B

PRN: 21010126147

COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2021-2026
 Case Name Balflour v/s Balflour

Name of Appellant Mrs. Balflour

Name of Respondent Mr. Balflour

Citation

Judges Atkin, Warrington, and Duke LJJ

Dated 25 June 1919

Facts of the case:

Mr. Balflour was a civil engineer who served as the Director of Irrigation for the
British government in Ceylon  (now Sri Lanka). His wife  Mrs. Balflour was living with him.
During Mr. Balflour's leave in 1915, they both returned to England. Mrs. Balflour, on the
other hand, had developed rheumatoid arthritis. Her doctor recommended her to remain in
England because the environment in Ceylon was unhealthy for her. Mr. Balflour's boat was
about to leave, and he offered Mrs. Balflour a sum of  £ 30 a month till she returned to
Ceylon orally. They drifted apart, and Mr. Balflour commented that it was best if they kept
their distance. Mrs. Balflour sued him in March 1918 for failing to make the monthly £ 30
payments. She was granted a decree nisi in July and an alimony order in December.

Judge Charles Sargant ruled in the first instance that Mr. Balflour was obligated to support
his wife.

Procedural History

The Lower Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff i.e Mrs. Balflour and held defendant Mr.
Balfour obliged to provide maintenance of £30 to his wife as promised but this judgement
was overturned by the Court of Appeal ruling that the agreement is not enforceable in a court
of law owing to its Domestic Nature and also because they doubted that Mrs. Balflour gave
consideration. It was just a domestic arrangement of a household that may be made everyday
between a husband and wife who are living together as a family.

Issues Raised

The issues that were framed by the King’s Bench Division were:-

1. Did Mr. Balflour ever intended to enter into any sort of agreement with his wife, Mrs.
Balflour?
2. Is the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balflour valid in nature at all?
3. Does the contract between spouses enforceable in court of law?

Held

1. In order for a contract to be enforceable, both parties must intend to enter into a
legally binding agreement.
2. The court will not enforce agreements between husband and wife that deal with day-
to-day home matters.

Rule

The distinction between Contracts and Promises was the focus of the rule in this instance.

1. A contract, according to English Contract Law, is an agreement that creates obligations

that are enforced or recognised by a court of law.

In common law, there are three main elements that must be present in order for a contract to
be formed: (i) agreement (ii) contractual intention (iii) consideration.
 2. The idea of creating legal intentions argues that in order for a contract to exist, both
parties must intend to engage into a legally binding contract and be willing to suffer legal
penalties if one of them fails to comply.

3. Consideration refers to "Something of Value" that is offered in exchange for a promise

and is required in order for the promise to be valid. It's essential for the commitment to be
enforceable as a contract. This has typically been either a disadvantage to the promisee or
a benefit to the promisor.

Analysis

When defendant Mr. Balflour took his case to the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Warrington,
Lord Justice Duke, and Lord Justice Atkin unanimously decided that there was no
enforceable agreement. Lord Justice Warrington noted that this was a pleasant familial accord
in his opinion. As a result, there was no such contract. Due to the nature of the circumstances,
there was an urgent promise made, and the wife did not object to the amount of money given
to her. As a result, it was considered that she was happy with £ 30. Whereas the spouse stated
that he would pay the amount till he was able to do so. As a result, he came to the conclusion
that this is a domestic arrangement which is very personal and cannot be taken to court.
Moreover, the husband had no legal intention to enter in a contract that is legally binding
since he was willing to pay the sum only until he was in a position to.

Lord Justice Duke also brought up a few

important considerations. The first was that their contact was based on their connection i.e
their marriage, which cannot be putted forth in front of a court of law. Second, this
arrangement was reached when they were living together in amity rather than in separation.
Finally, there was no consideration on Mrs. Balflour's part for Mr. Balflour, and the husband
had made no pledge in the first place.

As a result, no contract was ever formed. Such agreements between the

parties do not result in the establishment of a contract within the bounds of law," Lord Justice
Atkin said. The most typical types of non-contractual agreements are those between a
husband and wife." It was only a domestic arrangement; such agreements might be made
every day between a husband and wife who share a home. Because the only consideration
that exists for them is that of love and devotion, a failure to fulfil by either the husband or
wife must not result in legal penalties.

Conclusion
The judgement of Justice Sargent an additional judge of King’s Bench concluded that the
Defendant Mr. Balflour was liable and obliged to provide maintenance and support to his
wife, the Plaintiff Mrs. Balflour. Hence, the ruling considered the contract between husband
and wife valid and enforceable in a court of law.
But this was overturned by
the Court of Appeal which stated the reason that it was a domestic contract made within
spouses when they were living in amity and they also called upon the fact that there was lack
of consideration from Mrs. Balflour’s side.
A contract is not enforceable under English
Common Law unless and until the parties intend to create a legal relationship. The parties'
intentions to form a legal relationship are determined by the circumstances at the moment of
contracting. Whether or whether a promise is made, it is up to the parties to keep it to their
maximum extent. The judges who issued the judgement found that the court cannot intervene
in marital matters and that parties cannot be forced to solve their own difficulties. Social
agreements between family members cannot be enforced in a court of law since they lack
legal authority.