BALFOUR Vs BALFOUR

Facts of the case

In this case the plaintiff, Mrs. Balfour, sued the defendant, Mr. Balfour, her husband
for money due under an alleged verbal agreement, whereby he undertook to allow
her 30 pounds, a month in consideration of her agreeing to support herself without
calling upon him for any further maintenance. The parties were married in 1900. The
husband was resident in Ceylon (present day Sri Lanka), where he held a government
appointment.

The plaintiff accompanied him to Ceylon, but in 1915 they returned to England
defendant being on leave. In 1916 he went back to Ceylon, leaving her in England,
where she had to remain temporarily under medical advice. The plaintiff alleged that
the defendant before returning to Ceylon entered into the above agreement. The
parties' relationship deteriorated and the parties began living apart, the plaintiff
subsequently obtained a decree nisi for restitution of conjugal rights, and an order
for alimony.

Procedural history
An additional judge of King's Bench Division presided by Justice Sargant, held that the
defendant was under a responsibility to support his wife and there exists a strong
contract between the defendant and the plaintiff. The consent of the plaintiff to this
type monthly transfer was a valid to constitute a required contract between the
couple.

Issue:
Was the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour a valid contract?
Was the defendant's offer intended to be legally binding? Means was there any
intention of the parties to enter into a legal agreement?
In what conditions a court refuse to enforce agreements between spouses?

Arguments by Appellant:
The agreement made by the parties was a domestic agreement and not a legal
agreement. Mr. Balfour didn't have any intention to legally bind each other or
creating a legal agreement
Arguments by Respondent- Mrs. Balfour is regarded to be given the money as the
husband entered into the contract by offering her 30pounds and she agreed and
stayed back in England.
Rule
In this case comes a important rule that incorporates the role of intention into the
law of contract. The rules were applied to answer- does agreements between
spouses are legally binding to have enforceability in courts as contracts? The rule of
intention to create legal relationship in invoked in this case.

Despite having marital relationship Mrs. Balfour was suing her husband claiming that
Mr. Balfour perform the promise not because she is his wife but as a rational person
who made a promise. To enforce an agreement as contract there has to be
consideration and a legal intension to make it contract but in this case both the
parties were husband and wife and as per the nature, situation and the arguments of
Appellant the court of appeal reversed the Decision of Sargant J. saying the alleged
agreement did not constitute a legal contract, but was only an ordinary domestic
arrangement which could not be sued upon. Mutual promises made in the ordinary
domestic relationship of husband and wife do not of necessity give cause for action
on a contract. The court also looked upon the rule of agreements result into contract
between spouses.

Analysis
In this case lower court held the agreement enforceable by law as stating that Mrs.
Balfour's consent was a valid consideration to make contract enforceable. The case
was taken into appellate court held agreement unenforceable. The rule of
consideration was reviewed. Warrington LJ and Duke LJ doubted the consent of Mrs.
Balfour as valid consideration, whereas Atkin LJ comes with a doctrine of intention to
create legal relations that found to be decisive step to reach the verdict.

He applied the doctrine only written in the textbooks. It was the first time this rule of
law was invoked and became essential in laws of England to constitute agreements
into contracts. It is said that this doctrine is based on public policy, as of its nature,
the law of contract should not interfere in domestic situations otherwise courts
would be flooded by trivial domestic disputes.
In the case of Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, Mr. Balfour promised to pay his wife
£30/month as she stayed in England for medical reasons. When he failed to pay, Mrs.
Balfour sued him. Her action failed because there was no intention to create a legally
binding agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour. A contract cannot be made
without proper indication about the legal rights and obligations of the parties to the
contract. So, if this were to be a contract then the wife would have had a right to
receive payment and the husband would have had the obligation to pay his wife.