ASSIGNMENT COVERSHEET

Attach this coversheet as the cover for your submission. All sections must be completed.

Section A: Submission Details

Programme : DIPLOMA IN INDUSTRIAL LOGISTICS

Course Code & : JGD32603 - LAW OF CONTRACT

Name
Course Lecturer(s) : FARADINA BINTI AHMAD

Submission Title : ASSIGNMENT

Deadline : Day 30 Month 11 Year 2022 Time 12.00 AM

Penalties : • 5% will be deducted per day to a maximum of four (4) working days, after which
the submission will not be accepted.
• Plagiarised work is an Academic Offence in University Rules & Regulations and
will be penalised accordingly.

Section B: Academic Integrity

Tick (√) each box below if you agree:

I have read and understood the UniKL’s policy on Plagiarism in University Rules & Regulations.
/
This submission is my own, unless indicated with proper referencing.
/
This submission has not been previously submitted or
/ published. F
Section C: Submission Receipt
(must be filled in manually)

Office Receipt of Submission

Date & Time of
Submission Student Name(s) Student ID(s)
(stamp)
MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MOHD
30/11/2022 FAUZI 57102120003
MUHAMMAD IZZAINI AZHAR
30/11/2022 BIN LOKMAN 57102120093

MUHAMMAD FAIRUL ADLAN

30/11/2022 BIN BUKHARI 57102120207

30/11/2022 MUHAMMAD LUKMAN HAKIM 57102120100

BIN IBRAHIM

30/11/2022 MUHAMMAD ANAS IFFAT BIN 57102120121

KHAIRUL ANWAR

30/11/2022 MUHAMMAD HARITH HIDAYAT 57102120115

BIN ARIFIN
 Student Receipt of Submission

This is your submission receipt, the only accepted evidence that you have submitted your work. After
this is stamped by the appointed staff & filled in, cut along the dotted lines above & retain this for your
record.
Date & Time of Student ID(s)
Submission (stamp) Course Code Submission Title & Signature(s)

30/11/2022 JGD32603 ASSIGNMENT 57102120003

 BALFOUR V BALFOUR (1919)

Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Full case name: Balfour v Balfour

Decided: 25 June 1919

Citation(s): [1919] 2 KB 571

Legislation cited: Married Women's Property Act 1882

Fact of the case:

Mr. Balfour was a civil engineer and worked for the Government as the Director of Irrigation
in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Mrs Balfour was living with him. In 1915, they both came back to
England during Mr Balfour's leave. But Mrs Balfour had developed rheumatoid arthritis. Her doctor
advised her to stay in England, because the climate in Ceylon would be detrimental to her health. Mr
Balfour's boat was about to set sail, and he orally promised her £30 a month until she came back to
Ceylon. They drifted apart, and Mr Balfour wrote saying it was better that they remain apart. In
March 1918, Mrs Balfour sued him to keep up with the monthly £30 payments. In July she got a
decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimony. At first instance, judge Charles
Sargant held that Mr Balfour was under an obligation to support his wife.

Issues raised in the case:

1. Did Mr. Balfour ever intended to enter into any sort of agreement with his wife, Mrs. Balfour?

2. Is the agreement between Mr. And Mrs. Balfour valid in nature at all?

3. Does the contract between husband and wife enforceable in court of law?
Held: of the case:

The court acknowledged at the outset that some types of agreements do not have the stature of a
contract. Such an agreement frequently takes the form of an understanding between a husband and
wife. Such agreements often provide one side with a set payment on a daily, weekly, monthly.
Sometimes, this arrangement is referred to as an allowance. However, because the parties did not
intend that they should be attended by legal consequences, these agreements are not contracting. The
fact that there would not be enough courts to manage the volume of lawsuits is one of the reasons
the court is reluctant to accept these agreements as contracts. Because of this, the husband's promise
in this case did not qualify as a contract.

Summary:

The summary of the case of Balfour vs. Balfour (1919) is a fragment to easily understand the theory
of legal relations. The Balfour vs. Balfour case gave rise to the theory of the legal relationship, which
is essential to the formation of a contract. It is important to create legal relationships without which
a contract cannot come about.

Originally, at the first hearing of the case, Judge Sargant ruled that Ms. Balfour's claims were valid
and that Mr. Balfour should be entitled to pay her the alimony he had promised to pay. Ultimately,
Mr. Balfour appealed to the Court of Appeals. On appeal, Warrington LJ, Duke LJ, and Atkin LJ
Bench ruled that the court agreement was unenforceable. Atkin LJ saw it for its homely nature.
Warrington LJ and Duke LJ, on the other hand, suspected that Mrs Balfour was compassionate and
did so. The doctrine of intent to create a legal relationship was basically he adopted by Atkin LJ.

It has been said that the doctrine is public order and the internal agreement has nothing to do with it.
The court cannot afford such trifles regarding personal and family agreements. Although there may
be certain circumstances in which a husband and wife reach an agreement which has a legally binding
character in this regard, but such a circumstance did not exist in the present case. The teaching
attracted attention and gained importance. This intention is sometimes referred to as animus
contrahendi. In one of the later cases of Jones v. Padavatton, Salmon LJ had said that this was factual.
There is no legal presumption. The intention to establish a legal relationship is one of the essential
elements required to conclude a contract.

for easier understanding we can also summarize it by recognizing what happened in this case:

• a husband and wife lived together in Ceylon and then they went to England for a vacation.

• Wife had to stay because of illness. Husband returned but agreed send her 30 £ per month

• Marriage deteriorated and she sued to enforce the promise.

Issue summary:

• Whether arrangement that are agreed between husband and wife constitute a contract.
Holding or Rule:

• Court held that arrangement between spouses do not constitute a contract

• Parties did not intend to form a contract with legal consequences

By studying and going through the case of Balfour vs. Balfour (1919), we understand that a
mere social agreement made within a family cannot be enforced in court of law, these agreements do
not hold any legally binding authority. Second thing is there must be an intention to create a legal
relation at the part of the parties. Owing to all this, Mr. Balfour could not be sued by Mrs. Balfour in
court of law. This case has often been seen in conjunction with Merritt vs. Merritt 1970] 2 All ER
760; [1970] 1 WLR 121. In this case, though the couple was married but they already had an
estranged relationship, when the agreement was made, so in this scenario, any sort of agreement
between them was to be considered that of legal in nature.