BALFOUR V. BALFOUR

BALFOUR V. BALFOUR

(1918-19) ALL ER 860 (CA)

FACTS

• Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour were a married couple who lived in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). In 1915, they returned to England on leave. 
• Mrs. Balfour was advised by her doctor to stay in England due to health issues, while Mr. Balfour had to return to Ceylon for work. 
• Before he left, Mr. Balfour promised to pay Mrs. Balfour £30 per month as maintenance while they were apart. 
• However, after Mr. Balfour returned to Ceylon, the relationship deteriorated, and they eventually separated. 
• Mr. Balfour stopped making the payments, and Mrs. Balfour sued him to enforce the agreement.

ISSUES

The key issue in this case was whether the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour was a legally binding contract that could be enforced in a court of law.

CONTENTIONS

Plaintiff (Mrs. Balfour)

Argued that the promise made by Mr. Balfour to pay her £30 per month constituted a binding contract, and she was entitled to enforce it.

Defendant (Mr. Balfour)

Argued that the agreement was a domestic arrangement between husband and wife, made without the intention of creating legal relations, and therefore, it was not enforceable as a contract.

ANALYSIS

• The court analyzed whether the promise made by Mr. Balfour was intended to create legal obligations or if it was merely a domestic arrangement made without such intention. 
• The court considered the nature of agreements made between spouses and whether they should be treated differently from commercial contracts.

JUDGMENT

• The court, led by Lord Justice Atkin, ruled in favor of Mr. Balfour. 
• The judgment established that the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour was a domestic arrangement made without the intention to create legal relations. 
• Therefore, it was not enforceable as a contract. 
• The court held that agreements between spouses are generally presumed not to have legal force unless there is clear evidence of an intention to create legal relations.

COMMENTARY

• Balfour v. Balfour is a seminal case in contract law that established the principle that domestic agreements, particularly those between spouses, are generally not intended to be legally binding. 
• This case highlights the importance of the intention to create legal relations in determining the enforceability of agreements. 
• The decision reflects the court's view that not all agreements, especially those made in a domestic context, should be subject to legal enforcement. 
• This principle has since been applied in various cases to distinguish between social/domestic arrangements and commercial contracts, ensuring that only agreements with a clear intention to create legal obligations are enforceable.