Balfour v Balfour

Facts
•Mr Balfour and his wife went to England for a vacation,
and his wife became ill and needed medical attention.
•They made an agreement that Mrs Balfour was to remain
behind in England when the husband returned to Ceylon
(Sri Lanka) and that Mr Balfour would pay her £30 a
month until he returned. This understanding was made
while their relationship was fine.
• relationship later soured- wife sought to enforce the
agreement
• wife brought this action for the money her husband had
promised to pay to her but had failed to do so.
• Issue involved
• Was the contract between Mr and Mrs Balfour valid in
nature?
• The contention of the appellant
• the promise made by Mr Balfour of providing monthly
expenses to his wife was a domestic agreement and not a
legal agreement nor so the husband didn't have any
intention of creating a legal agreement.
• The contention of the respondent
• the wife is deemed to get the given amount of money as the
husband entered into a contract by offering his wife £30 and
the wife agreed and stayed back in England.
 held
• agreement was purely social and domestic in nature and
characteristic and therefore it was presumed that the
parties did not intend to be legally bound.
• Agreements made between a husband and wife to provide
capitals are generally not contracts because generally, the
parties do not intend that they should be attended by legal
ends.
• These arrangements do not result in contracts- even
though there may be consideration.
• Parties did not intend that they shall be attended by legal
consequences.
 Mcgregor v Mcgregor (1888)21 QBD 424

• Facts- husband and wife withdrew their

complaint under an agreement by which the
husband promised to pay allowance and she to
refrain from pledging his credit.
• Agreement was held to be binding
• we are not to be distracted by the relation
between parties rather ask the real question
which is whether they intended any legal
consequences by their agreement or not.
 Jones V Padavatton (1969)
• Facts-
• Facts
• A mother and daughter came to an arrangement whereby the
mother agreed to maintain her daughter if she agreed to study for
the bar. The daughter commenced her studies and the mother
paid her an allowance. The arrangement was later altered and the
mother agreed to provide a house in which her daughter could
reside whilst she studied. 
• For five long years the daughter could not complete her education.
• Mother and daughter fell into dispute as to the occupancy of the
house, and the mother sought possession.
• Issues
• The daughter argued the agreement between herself and her
mother amounted to a legally binding contract and, as such, she
should be entitled to remain in occupation of the house. She
claimed there had been an intention to create legal relations and
she had provided consideration for her mother’s maintenance
by studying for the bar.
• The mother argued there was merely an informal family
arrangement, there had been no intention to create legal
relations . Even if there was an enforceable contract, she
asserted the terms of the arrangement were too vague for the
court to enforce.
• Held
• mother’s appeal was successful and she was awarded
possession.
• Danckwerts- family arrangement which depend on the good
faith of the promises which are made and are not intended to
be rigid , binding agreements.
• Salmon- daughter acted on her mother’s promise- left attractive
job-there was a contract.
• Agreement could last only for a period reasonably sufficient –
five years more than sufficient.
• Mother can’t support her , her son and husband for perpetuity.
 Objectivity, not subjectivity
• What matters is not what parties had in mind , but what a
reasonable person would think in the circumstances, their
intention to be.
• Simpkins v Pays (1955)
• Facts- three ladies- two of them were mother and
daughter- third guest- together they used to send entry to
crossword puzzle- expenses of the postal tickets met by
one another without rules- entry successful- mother
refused.
• Held- mother and daughter bound- reasonable person.-
transaction commercial nature
 Business Matters
• Rose & Frank Co v J.R. Crompton & Bros (1923)
• Agreement between firms- “This arrangement is not
entered into as a formal legal agreement and shall not
be subject to a legal jurisdiction in the law courts either
in the US or in England”
• Agreement terminated by one of the parties – contrary
to its terms.
• Suit was brought (American firm)
• Held- doc not binding- did not constitute a binding
contract- no intention to affect legal relations.
 Carlill v carbolic smoke ball company

• Company took the plea that they had no

intention to contract and the advertisement
was merely a puff.
• Held- “to show our sincerity we have already
deposited 1000 pounds in Alliance bank.
• This appears to others that the company had
intention to contract.
 Indian Scenario

• Banwari Lal V Sukhdarshan Dayal (1973)

• Auction sale of land-loudspeaker spelling out
terms and conditions of sale- plot would be
reserved for a dharmshala- subsequently sold
for private purpose.
• Held- promises held out over loudspeaker
claptraps- just a puff.
• CWT v Abdul Hussain (1988)