1

CASE ANALYSIS:
BALFOUR V BALFOUR
Submitted by Supervised by
Karuvi Raina Dr. Vikram Karuna
Class-1st Year Assistant Professor of Law
Roll no.-22210 Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law

Punjab, Patiala
2022
 2

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this case analysis on “Balfour v Balfour’’, submitted to Rajiv Gandhi National
University of Law, Punjab, Patiala is my original work carried out under the supervision of Dr.Vikram
Karuna. The project is entirely based on my own research work and is being submitted here for the first time.
All the ideas and references have been duly acknowledged. This project is free from plagiarism to the best of
my knowledge and understanding.

Karuvi Raina
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab,
Patiala
Date-09/10/2022
 3
SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the case analysis on “Balfour v Balfour”
submitted to Rajiv Gandhi National University Of Law , is a research work carried out by “KARUVI
RAINA” under my supervision and guidance for further evaluation.

Dr. Vikram Karuna

Assistant professor of Law
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
Patiala
Date-09/102022
 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly,I would like to thank the respected vice-chancellor of this university,Dr. G.S Bajpai and would like to
thank him for promoting research based projects so as to improve and increase the critical thinking capacity of
the students as well as make them inculcate the habit of researching,something that is extremely important for
legal experts.He has continuously been the guiding light for the faculty and more importantly for the
students.He has never let us down and has always promoted creativity and inquisitiveness in students.
Secondly,I would like to thank our concerned teacher for the subject of law of contracts,Dr Vikram
Karuna,without whom the completion of this project would not have been possible.He has always been friendly
and approachable and also addressed all our queries,no matter how insignificant they are.His constant support
and motivation is what has helped me to complete this project as required and before the due date.
Lastly,nothing would have been possible without the constant love and support that my parents and friends keep
showering on me.Without them,this project would only have been a thought in my mind,but impossible to
make.They have always been supportive of my endeavors and have always pushed me to reach my true
potential.
I sincerely thank each and every one mentioned above.

Karuvi Raina
 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION 2

SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5

1.INTRODUCTION 6

2.HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 6

3.FACTS OF THE CASE 8

4.ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE 9

5. CONTENTIONS OF BOTH SIDES 9

6. DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT 10

(PROCEEDINGS) 10

7. DECISION AND RATIO DECIDENDI 11

8. CURRENT SITUATION(INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC) 13

9. OPINION 14

10. SIGNIFICANCE 16

11. CONCLUSION 17

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY 18
 6
BALFOUR V BALFOUR[1919]:CASE ANALYSIS

1. INTRODUCTION
This case took place in the year 1919 and was one of the landmark cases under the English Law.This case
focuses primarily on the fact that a mere social agreement formed between family members,without any
intention to enter into a legal relationship,cannot be enforced in the court of law.This is because a person’s
intention plays a very important role in legal matters and if a person never had any legal intention at the time of
making an agreement,he/she cannot be held liable in court for a breach of contract,because these cases do not
hold any legally binding authority.The intention to create a legally binding contract must be of both the parties
and not just of one;as was the case in Balfour v Balfour.This case has often been seen in conjunction with
Merritt v Merritt[1970].In the mentioned case,the couple were married but when they made the agreement,the
relation between them was damaged and they were not on good terms with each other,hence contradictory to the
judgment passed in Balfour v Balfour,it was held that the couple had a legal intention of entering into a
contract and thus,making their case enforceable in the court of law.This case led to one of the most important
judgements under the Law of Contract.It gave birth to the theory of legal relationship,which subsequently
became one of the most important element for an agreement to be converted into a contract.Without formation
of a legal relationship by both the parties during an agreement,the birth of a contract cannot take place.This case
was decided by the “Court of Appeal(Civil Division)”,which is the highest court within the senior courts of
England and Wales as well as the second highest in the legal system of England and Wales,first being the
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.The case was decided specifically on 25th June,1919.The expert
opinions in this case were given by Warrington LJ,Duke LJ and Atkin LJ.

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Before this case was filed in the court and before it’s judgment was declared by the judicial bench,contracts
between the family members were not determined on the basis of their intention.In the present case of Balfour v
Balfour,it was decided that presence of a legal intention at the time of entering into an agreement and execution
 7
of the contract is absolutely necessary.Before this case was decided,no heed was paid to the intention of the
parties and agreements between family members was generally considered as a domestic agreement not
enforceable in a court of law.From this case onwards,the intention was taken into consideration and the
intention to enter into a legal relation was determined by the facts and the circumstances of the case at the time
of execution of the contract.
 8

3. FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr Balfour and Mrs Balfour were a married couple who lived in Ceylon(now Sri Lanka).One time,the couple
went for a vacation to England in the year 1915.Within the time frame that they had gone to England,Mrs
Balfour felt ill and was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and she was not in a condition to move or
travel.She was in urgent need of medical attention so that her condition could be medicated and improved as
soon as possible by the doctors.Mr Balfour was a civil engineer and worked for the government.He was on the
position of the Director of irrigation in Ceylon.He had to urgently leave England to attend to some work that
had come up for him in Ceylon,so both the husband and the wife made an agreement that Mr Balfour would
return to Ceylon to attend to work matters and Mrs Balfour would stay back in England,where they had initially
gone as a vacation,until she recovers from her medical problem and gets back into a position to travel
comfortably.The most crucial part of the case comes up when during the course of the agreement that they made
above,Mr Balfour orally promises Mrs Balfour that he would pay her 30 pounds as maintenance every month to
meet her every day expenses,including her medical expenses,and this shall take place until everything falls into
place,until she fully recovers from her illness and returns back to Ceylon(Sri Lanka).One fact of this case that
differs from the fact of Merritt v Merritt and because of which the judgments given in both these cases differ
from each other is the condition of the relationship of husband and wife.In this case,the time when the above
mentioned agreement was made,the relationship between Mr Balfour and Mrs Balfour was perfectly fine.There
was no kind of sourness,bitterness or hatred towards each other.Now,this is what was different in Merritt v
Merritt.At the time when the couple in Merritt v Merritt were making an agreement,the relationship between
them was strained and sour.Moving on with the facts of Balfour v Balfour,after the agreement regarding the
maintenance money etc was made between the couple and Mr Balfour left for Ceylon,their relationship started
getting bitter and deteriorated,which further led to non-payment of the maintenance amount from Mr Balfour to
Mrs Balfour,as agreed earlier.They drifted apart and Mr Balfour wrote saying that it would be better that they
remained apart,given the sad stage to which their relationship had fallen.At a later stage,they decided to file for
a divorce and subsequently got legally separated. Eventually in March 1918,Mrs Balfour decided to take legal
action and went to court to sue Mr Balfour for breach of contract as he stopped paying her 30 pounds that he
had earlier promised he would pay as maintenance.
 9

4. ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE

1) Did Mr Balfour ever intend to enter into a legal bond while making the agreement of maintenance with
his wife?
2) Is the agreement between Mr Balfour and Mrs Balfour valid at all in the eyes of law?
3) How important is the intention to enter into a legal bond for a contract to take place?
4) Can family members enter into a contract that is legally enforceable in a court of law?

5. CONTENTIONS OF BOTH SIDES

At the part of the Plaintiff(Mr Balfour)

Mr Balfour argued that the agreement was not made with an intention to enter into any kind of legal bond or
such that it is enforceable in the court of law.It is a fact that he made the promise of paying maintenance of 30
pounds every month,till Mrs Balfour completely recovered from her illness and returned back to Ceylon(Sri
lanka),however the major point lies in the fact that Mr Balfour did not intend to create a legal bond when he
said this,particularly because the relationship of Mr and Mrs Balfour at that time was pretty good.

At the part of the Defendant(Mrs Balfour)

It was argued that the maintenance of 30 pounds should be given to Mrs Balfour because her husband,Mr
Balfour entered into a domestic agreement that constituted a domestic contract when he made such a promise
because it as because of her promise that Mrs Balfour agreed to stay back in England until she fully recovers
from her illness and returns back to Ceylon(Sri Lanka).
 10

6. DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT

(PROCEEDINGS)
The decision of this case was not always in the favor of Mr Balfour.Initially, Mrs Balfour moved to the court to
file a case against her husband,Mr Balfour,for breach of contract by him and in order to seek the maintenance
that he promised.The decision was given by an additional judge of Kings bench,which was presided by Justice
Sargant. He declared that Mr Balfour is liable and is under an obligation to pay maintenance and provide
support to Mrs Balfour,as promised by him.It was held that there was a valid contract between Mr Balfour and
Mrs Balfour.Hence the lower court held the case in favor of Mrs Balfour(plaintiff) and against Mr
Balfour(defendant).As it was stated above that the relationship between Mr Balfour and Mrs Balfour worsened
during the period that they were living away from each other.Eventually the situation came to a point where
they considered divorcing each other for the better.Hence,in the month of July,Mrs Balfour received the order
by the court that stated the date on which their marriage was to end legally unless a good reason not to grant a
divorce was produced,however that did not happen in the present case.So,the couple got
divorced.Subsequently,an order for alimony was also received by Mrs Balfour in the month of
December.However,after hearing the judgment passed by the lower court,Mr Balfour was not satisfied and he
appealed in the higher court for reviewing the decision.
 11

7. DECISION AND RATIO DECIDENDI

After Mr Balfour sent the case to a higher court for review,the decision that came as a result was held in his
favor.The decision was majorly given by three judges namely,Justice Atkins,Justice Warrington and Justice
Duke.Although all these judges held Mr Balfour not guilty,the reasons given by all were different.The most
important justification was proposed by Lord Atkins.He held that unless and until there is an intention of both
the parties to enter into a legally bound contract,the agreement made between such parties as family
members,husband-wife etc cannot be held as legally enforceable.In the present case,the parties did not expect
for their actions to be accompanied by legal repercussions.He held that is agreement was of a domestic nature
and had no element whatsoever of a binding contract.If such agreements of monetary nature between husband
and wife start being considered as legally enforceable contracts,then each and every agreement made on a daily
basis to meet the day-to-day expenses of the household as well as money for the children will start being
considered as contracts, and this will not be something that will be viable,feasible or even possible for the courts
to handle.The courts have many other important matters to attend to and all it will do is unnecessarily take up
the precious time os courts and lead to nothing fruitful.Another important point to be noted here is that if the
agreements made between husband and wife are considered as legally enforceable,then not only the wife,but
husband also can file a case against the wife for non fulfillment of duties.For example,if a husband promises his
wife that he shall pay her a particular sum of money for meeting the expenses of the household and of the
children,and for taking care and maintaining the house.However,if the wife fails to perform the above duties as
agreed at the time of making the agreement,the husband will be free to file a case against his wife for breach of
contract.However,as we all know,this cannot take place because for a valid contract,one of the most important
elements is that of a legal intention.However,this does not mean that a legally enforceable contract cannot be
formed between family members,it can be formed if there is an intention for the same.The identification of legal
intention is very subjective and it depends on the facts and the situation of the particular case we are referring
to.Whether the parties intended to create a legal relationship or not is determined by the circumstances that
existed and under the situation the execution of the contract was done.Even though the most important and
widely accepted explanation was that of Lord Justice Atkins,the opinions of Justice Warrington and of Justice
Duke were equally valid and justifiable.Justice Warrington was of the view that such agreements between a
wife and a husband were of trivial nature and not legally enforceable in a court of law.Also if it was held in this
case that the contract is legally enforceable,then it would have to be the same decision when it came to other
insignificant and trivial agreement between family members.He further states that these 2 people never intended
to enter into a legal bond.The husband made a promise of paying the 30 pounds as maintenance and he was only
bond by honor to give the same as long as he was in a position to do it.However,according to Justice
Warrington,the wife made no type of bargain and this fact was considered as sufficient to decide the case in
favor of Mr Balfour.
Justice Duke held that at the time when the agreement between the husband and wife was made regarding the
pay for the maintenance,the relations between them were good and they had not been divorced as yet.They were
no doubt living separately because of their respective situations,but they were living in amity.The agreement for
separation happened subsequently,which led to their divorce.However,this was not the case when the agreement
for the maintenance was made,hence it can be held that no party had any intention to enter into a legal bond
whatsoever,at the time they were entering into the agreement.The intention at the time of making the agreement
is what is considered by the court and not after it.He believed that agreements of domestic nature,such as in this
particular case and the other cases concerning husband and wife,if legally enforced in a court of law,will not
 12
lead to any type of benefit to the parties involved,but will only increase the burden on the courts, as the number
of cases to be addressed will start increasing at a rapid pace and every other couple will start moving to courts
for insignificant reasons.
 13

8. CURRENT SITUATION(INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC)

This case held that there is a rebuttable presumption of legal intention to enter into an enforceable contract when
the parties involved in making the agreement are family members.Hoevever,this does not necessarily mean that
family members cannot enter into a legally binding contract(Merritt v Merritt is a perfect example of exception
to the rule of intention to enter into a legal relationship when it comes to husband and wife as they were already
separated),as this entirely depends on the intention of both the parties while making an agreement with each
other which is determined by the circumstances they are in.
With respect to the current situation,even in today’s date,the intention of the parties is an essential element to
enter into a legally binding valid contract.This has been possible only because of the judgment passed by the
higher bence in the case of Balfour v Balfour.Without the intention to enter into a legally binding contract,an
agreement can never be converted into a contract and hence can never be enforced in a court of law.Various
other cases that were registered in the courts subsequent to the judgment in Balfour v Balfour were also decided
on similar lines,with Balfour v Balfour as the judicial precedent.Some of these subsequent cases are that of
Jones v Padavatton(1969) in which it was held that the agreement would not be enforceable because it was
domestic in nature and there is a presumption of no intention to create a legal relationship as the agreements
was between daughter and her mother.Another subsequent case on similar lines is that of an agreement between
friends such as Coward v Motor Insurance Bureau(1963),in which the court once again held that despite an
accident taking place,the agreement is not an enforceable contract in the court of law as there was no intention
to enter into a legal bond.
 14

9. OPINION
In my view,the final judgment of the present case,Balfour v Balfour,is correct and all the reasons given by the
various justices associated with this case are also suitable.If we were to consider the previous judgment that was
given by the lower court,the first time this case was registered in court by Mrs Balfour,in 1918,then we would
have to give such judgments for all the subsequent cases of this nature as the present case would have been
taken as a landmark that would be considered everytime a similar case would appear in the court.However,it
was extremely necessary and important that the case be filed for appeal in the higher court,a suitable action that
was taken by Mr Balfour.The higher court certainly looked into the matter deeply and gave a judgment that has
become a landmark and it still very relevant in the cases relating to contracts.This judgment created one of the
main elements of forming a contract i.e intention to enter into a legal bond.As in other matters of law intention
plays a crucial role,same is the case when it comes to the law of contract.This judgment is particularly
significant when it comes to reducing the burden on the courts.This is because if trivial matters of such
nature,concerning casual agreements between husband and wife, family members and other close relations start
suing each other for insignificant reasons and the cases in which intention to enter into a contract was not
present,there will be an overflow of unnecessary cases that the court would have to deal with,and that is
something our already burdened courts cannot afford to do.The courts have many other, more important cases it
has to solve and if it gets caught up in such petty issues,then it will miss out the cases that are genuinely
important and the people will not get the justice that they deserve.Due to this,people’s faith in the judicial
system will be seriously shaken and the people will not trust the courts anymore.Moreover,we make different
kinds of promises and agreements in our daily lives and these are domestic and casual in nature.They should
not be considered as contracts that can be legally enforceable in the court of law.Some other social agreements
like promising someone to meet them in the evening but not going,promising to attend a dinner party but not
going etc.All of these keep happening during the daily course of our lives and are not to be considered as
contracts.A disadvantage of this arrangement can be in situations when a serious agreement is being made
between husband and wife,but the intention cannot be proven.In this situation,if only one party’s intention is
proven,then also it will not be considered a valid contract.As we can see this in the present case,Balfour v
Balfour,the wife genuinely believed this to be a valid contract and stayed back in Europe,hoping that her
husband will keep sending her the promised money as maintenance for her survival and medical treatment,but
this agreement was not made with a legal intention by the husband and even though the wife suffered and had
difficulty living in England when Mr Balfour stopped sending the money,this agreement will still not be
considered as a legally enforceable contract because the intention to create a legally binding contract could not
be proven as the bond of Mr. Balfour and Mrs.Balfour was good at the time they entered into such an
agreement.Thus, sometimes it can be difficult to prove the intention of the contracting parties as it can only be
determined by the circumstances,but this does not make a good ground for considering all types of agreements
as legally binding contracts.It such a case arises,all types of casual agreements will start being considered as
contracts and the people will start going to the courts for trivial matters,which will further make the courts
overburdened.Because of the excessive burden,courts will start overlooking important matters and that is
something no country can afford to do as it will put justice at stake.What the courts can do is to take into
account the seriousness of the agreements,not just the intention.If one party is sacrificing something because of
the agreement made,it should constitute as a good consideration and the agreement should be made
enforceable.But then again,there would have to be something that determines the seriousness of an
agreement,something that is highly subjective and difficult to calculate.Thus,despite some of the
 15
loopholes,intention to enter into a legal bond cannot be something that can be eliminated while an agreement is
being made and executed by the respective parties.
 16

10. SIGNIFICANCE
This case is often seen in conjunction with Merritt v Merritt[1970].This is because the facts of both the cases
are similar to a great extent,but the few differences these cases have are the most important points of contention
that led to the altogether different judgements from respected judges.The difference lies in the status of the
relationship between husband and wife,when the agreement between them was being made.This is because it is
with the help of identifying the situation and condition of the relationship only that we will get to know if the
parties had an intention to form a legal contract or just a casual agreement.Thus,the case of Balfour v
Balfour[1919]became the landmark judgment that considered the intention of the parties as an important
element of forming a contract.This case was referred to in the other cases with the similar facts that were
subsequently reported in the courts in the following years.Thus the relevance and significance of this case and
most importantly it’s decision,can be seen by the fact that the judgment of this case is still followed in the
current times,even after so many decades and rulings of the courts.The Indian Contract Act,1872 does not have
any express provision to define the concept of ‘intention to create legal relationships’ between the
parties,however,section 2(h) states that, “An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.”This differentiates
clearly between an agreement and a contract.An agreement only becomes a contract when all the essential
elements are fulfilled,one of the most important among them being the intention to create a legally enforceable
contract,something that can only be determined by the circumstances in which the agreement has been made
and it’s execution.
 17

11. CONCLUSION
This case makes the landmark judgment that declares agreements made between family members to be
domestic in nature and thus casual and unenforceable in the court of law.It further lays down and discusses the
importance of presence of legal intention at the time of making an agreement,for an agreement to become a
contract.However,as we all know that directly identifying the intention of a person is impossible and hence the
intentions are identified by examining the circumstances and the situations that are present at the time of
execution of the contract.It is because of the judgment of this case that intention to create a legal relation by
both the parties at the time of entering into an agreement was added as another important element that converted
an agreement into a contract.This case declares that the court has no business in the marital affairs of the
couples when it comes to trivial dat-to-day matters and that the couples have to resolve such issues at their
personal level,without disturbing the court for unnecessary matters.Thus,the case of Balfour v Balfour[1970]
gave a new and a considerably innovative and different perspective to contract validation.
 18

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) Sabeer S, “Balfour Vs. Balfour- Case Analysis [1919] 2KB 571” (Balfour Vs. Balfour- Case Analysis
[1919] 2KB 571) <https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4531-balfour-vs-balfour-case-
analysis-1919-2kb-571.html> accessed October 7, 2022
2) “Balfour v Balfour - Wikipedia” (Balfour v Balfour - Wikipedia)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_v_Balfour> accessed October 7, 2022
3) Patida T, “Short Case Analysis: Balfour v/s Balfour” (Short Case Analysis: Balfour v/s Balfour)
<https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7460-short-case-analysis-balfour-v-s-balfour.html>
accessed October 7, 2022
4) CB B, “Balfour vs Balfour Case Summary (1919) - Law Planet - Legal News, Law Updates & Law
Exams Preparation” (Law Planet - Legal News, Law Updates & Law Exams Preparation, May 13, 2021)
<https://lawplanet.in/balfour-vs-balfour-case-summary-1919/> accessed October 7, 2022
5) “Balfour v Balfour &mdash; Australian Contract Law” (Australian Contract Law, December 17, 2020)
<https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/cases/database/balfour-v-balfour> accessed October 8, 2022
6) Jain A, “Case Analysis Of Balfour v/s Balfour” (Case Analysis Of Balfour v/s Balfour)
<https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7508-case-analysis-of-balfour-v-s-balfour.html>
accessed October 9, 2022