The Balfour v. Balfour case is considered a landmark judgment because it dealt with creating a legally binding contract between a married couple. The judgment was decided in 1919, when the wife, Mrs. Balfour, filed the case in the lower court and got the judgment delivered against her husband, Mr. Balfour. However, Mr. Balfour appealed against the lower court’s judgment in the higher court, and the court of appeals reversed the judgment delivered by the lower court. The crux of the judgment establishes that the intention is really important to enter into any kind of contract, and the promise made between the husband and wife in the ordinary course of life does not come under the legal purview of contract law, nor is it legally enforceable if the intention to form a legally binding contract is absent.
Geeky Takeaways:
- The contract has established that to make a valid contract, there must be an intention to create a legal relationship between the parties to the contract; if such intention is absent, the contract shall be null and void.
- The Balfour vs. Balfour case is a landmark case that establishes that intention is really important to enter into any kind of contract, and the promise made between the husband and wife in the ordinary course of life does not come under the legal purview of contract law.
- The doctrine is made for public policy and not for domestic agreements. It can also be established that a court can never indulge in any sort of small issue like this between the family.
- This case is one of the most significant judgments in the whole of judicial history, which gave birth to the doctrine of intention to create legal relations and is used as a landmark case while referring to present cases.
Table of Content
Facts of the Case: Balfour Vs. Balfour
- Mr. and Mrs. Balfour got married in August 1900.
- Mr. Balfour was a resident of Ceylon (now called Sri Lanka) and was a government employee in Ceylon. and both of them went to Ceylon as Mr. Balfour had to join his job again.
- In November 1915, Mr. and Mrs. Balfour visited England. Mr. Balfour was on leave for his stay in England.
- Mr. and Mrs. Balfour stayed in England until August 1916. The leave of Mr. Balfour was over; he came back to Ceylon.
- Mrs. Balfour developed rheumatic arthritis. Doctors advised her to avoid traveling until November 1916. Mrs. Balfour remained in England, and her husband decided to leave for Ceylon alone.
- As per their mutual discussion, Mr. Balfour decided to give a 24 GBP check to Mrs. Balfour and also promised her to send 30 GBP per month until he returned to England and took her back.
- For some time, Mr. and Mrs. Balfour followed the statements made by them, and everything was fine between them. Mr. Balfour was also following the decision to send 30 GBP per month.
- After some time, the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour deteriorated. Later on, Mr. Balfour wrote to Mrs. Balfour, asking her to make the separation permanent.
- In March of 1918, Mrs. Balfour initiated legal proceedings against Mr. Balfour for restitution of conjugal rights.
- In July 1918, the separation was made legally permanent which means Mr. and Mrs. Balfour were divorced.
- Mrs. Balfour sued her husband, Mr. Balfour, for the non-payment of the amount that he was supposed to pay.
Issue in the Case: Balfour Vs. Balfour
Issue 1: Was the agreement established between Mr. Balfour and her spouse, Mrs. Balfour, legally binding at all?
Issue 2: Did Mr. Balfour ever intend to make a contract with his wife, Mrs. Balfour?
Issue 3: Whether the domestic agreements made between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour fall under the purview of the contract law?
Issue 4: Does any mere promise between the husband and the wife lead to a legally enforceable contract?
Issue 5: Does every oral agreement amount to a valid contract?
Issue 6: Is the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour valid in nature?
Issue 7: Does Mr. Balfour promise to pay GBP 30 per month to Mrs. Balfour to establish a valid contract that can be sued?
Contention from the Side of Mr. Balfour: Appellant in this Case
- Arguments made from Mr. Balfour’s side was that the agreement made between Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour was domestic.
- Mr. Balfour had no intention to make any legally binding contract with his wife, Mrs. Balfour.
- And, due to the same reason, there couldn’t be any legal obligation on him to pay monthly maintenance to his wife, Mrs. Balfour.
Contention from the Side of Mrs. Balfour: Respondent in this Case
- Arguments made from Mrs. Balfour’s side were that the husband, Mr. Balfour, had to pay the maintenance amount to Mrs. Balfour as Mr. Balfour entered into a domestic contract with Mrs. Balfour.
- Due to the above-mentioned reason, he was legally compelled to send 30 GBP per month to his wife as maintenance and support for her medical treatment.
- Mrs. Balfour relied on this agreement made by Mr. Balfour to pay her monthly maintenance, and it was the only reason that she had agreed to remain in England for her medical treatment.
| Name of the Case |
Balfour vs. Balfour |
|---|---|
| Citation | [1919] 2 K.B. 571 |
| Date of Judgement | 25 June 1919 |
| Appellant | Mr. Balfour |
| Respondent | Mrs. Balfour |
| Bench/Judges | Duke LJ, Warrington LJ, and Atkin LJ |
| Major Contribution | When a husband and wife enter into an agreement for providing the maintenance, the agreement shall not be a legally binding contract until or unless the agreement is made with the intention of legal enforceability. |
| Country | United Kingdom (UK) |
| Area of Law | Enforcement of promises, family arrangements |
| Issue in the Case | Are offers between husband and wife legally binding? |
Judgement in the Case: Balfour Vs. Balfour
- The bench, consisting of Duke LJ, Warrington LJ, and Atkin LJ, looked into the matter. The court analyzed the set of evidence submitted by both sides in this case.
- In court, Mrs. Balfour stated that the promise of Mr. Balfour had promised to send 30 GBP per month as maintenance towards her medical treatment could be inferred by the set of letters as evidence before the court.
- However, Mr. Warrington, L.J., one of the judges, questioned the validity of that agreement, whether that agreement fulfilled all the requirements to be present in a contract to make it valid, or whether Mr. Balfour made a mere promise that may be made in the daily course of life between the husband and wife.
- Adding to his remark, Mr. Warrington, L.J., also said that after going through the facts of the case, it could be interpreted that no contract was created between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour “in express terms.” Everything that happened was just a mere series of promises between the friendly married couple. He also added that the decision given by the lower court judge, Justice Sargant, in this case, could not stand and that the appeal should be allowed.
- The other judge on the panel, Atkin, L.J., stated Mr. Balfour (the appellant) had not intended the agreement to be legally binding at all, and there could be an agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour, but as there was no legal intention, the contract can’t be validated. So, it was just a mere set of promises made between the couple, and the same could not be called a contract. He also added that such kinds of agreements between husband and wife are very common and cannot be treated as contracts. He also said that the appeal by Mr. Balfour should be allowed.
- Duke, L.J., also agreed with both of the judges in the panel and added that the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour was made as usual as a happily married couple. The agreement was purely a domestic agreement with mutual consent. So, it could not be held legally binding at all.
- In the court of appeal, it was established by the judges that the ambit of the agreement made between husband and wife was purely domestic. The judge, Lord Justice Atkin, held that when the couple (Mr. and Mrs. Balfour) entered into an agreement, there was no intention to make it legally binding on each other.
- Furthermore, it was also established that a court will never take into account the domestic agreement between the husband and wife, which is usual in the daily course of life, and the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour was not under the scope of the contract in the given circumstances and facts.
- Hence, the court of appeals reversed the judgment passed by Justice Sargant of the lower court and gave the verdict in favor of Mr. Balfour.
Conclusion
The Balfour v. Balfour case is considered a landmark judgment because it dealt with creating a legally binding contract between a married couple. The judgment was decided in 1919, when the wife, Mrs. Balfour, filed the case in the lower court and got the judgment delivered against her husband, Mr. Balfour. However, Mr. Balfour appealed against the lower court’s judgment in the higher court, and the court of appeals reversed the judgment delivered by the lower court. The crux of the judgment establishes that the intention is really important to enter into any kind of contract, and the promise made between the husband and wife in the ordinary course of life does not come under the legal purview of contract law, nor is it legally enforceable if the intention to form a legally binding contract is absent. The court of appeals reversed the judgment passed by Justice Sargant of the lower court and gave the verdict in favor of Mr. Balfour. The agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour was made as usual as a happily married couple. The agreement was purely a domestic agreement with mutual consent. So, it could not be held legally binding at all.