Case Analysis of Balfour
vs. Balfour
Citations:
[1919] 2 KB 571; [1918-19] All ER Rep 860; (1919) 88 LJKB 1054; (1919) 121 LT
346; (1919) 35 TLR 609.
Bench: Kings Bench Lord Justice Warrington, Lord Justice
Duke, Lord Justice Atkin
Petitioner: Balfour
Respondent: Balfour
Court: Court
of Appeal of England And Wales (Civil Division)
INTRODUCTION
Intention to make Legal Relations is one
amongst the foremost necessary necessities of Indian Contract act, 1872 so as
for a contract to be valid. Section ten of Indian Contract act makes it
essential that there got to be AN intention to make legal relations and
therefore agreement of domestic or social nature doesn't qualify to be valid
contract.
Balfour v. Balfour could be a leading case law
with reference to this essential of contract. during this case, it had been
recognized by the court that if AN agreement arises such it might represent
valid consent standard circumstances, it's not necessary it might be valid
contract once there's no intention to make professional relation and out of
domestic agreement between the spouses.
Case History:
This case was 1st presided over by Justice
Sargent, an extra choose of the King’s Division Bench. The court dominated in
favor of the better half. It commands that the husband was under an obligation
to support his better half and also the consent of the better half to such a
rendezvous was spare thought to represent a contract. The husband later on
appealed within the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) leading to this judgement.
FACTS OF THE
CASE
The parties in this
case were Mr.Balfour and his wife Mrs. Balfour. They got married in 1900. Mr.
Balfour was in the position of Director of Irrigation under Government of
Ceylon (present day Sri Lanka). Here, Mr. Balfour is the appellant in this
case. He resided with his wife in Ceylon, Sri Lanka. Throughout his vacations within
the year 1915, they came to European country (England). His wife became unwell
and required medical attention. She was suggested by her doctor to remain in England.
They created an agreement that Mrs. Balfour was to stay behind in Englandand
Mr.Balfour shall pay 30pound a month until he returns. This understanding was
created when their relationship was fine; but the relationship later soured.
After when he came back to Ceylon he wrote her to mention that it might be better
that their separation become permanent. The parties divorced but later a
difficulty arose on whether or not agreement was enforceable and shortly at the
moment Mrs. Balfour sued him for restitution of her legal right and for support
payment capable the quantity her husband had in agreement to send. In March
1918, Mrs. Balfour sued him to stay up with the monthly £30 payments. In 1919,
Balfourv Balfour gave birth to the intention to form legal doctrine in contract
law.
Issue.
·
Does the husband promises to pay £30 per month constitute a
valid contract which can be sued upon?
·
Whether the agreement is qualified as a valid contract
between them?
·
Did Mr. Balfour didtry to intentionally create legal
relations by the agreement?
·
Did such verbal agreement between spouses create any legal
consequences or just domestic and social agreements?
·
Whether domestic and social agreements can be enforced and
come within the ambit of Contract law?
Held.
The court first
recognized that bound sorts of agreements don't reach the standing of a
contract. An agreement between a husband and woman is usually arises such a
type of agreement. In such agreements, one party is provides a bound total of
cash on a daily, weekly, monthly, etc.basis. This agreement is typically termed
as allowance. However, these agreements don't seem to be contracts as a result
of the “parties didn't intend that they must be attended by legal
consequences.” One reason the court is hesitant to treat these agreements as
contracts, is that there wouldn't be enough courts to handle the volume of
cases. Thus, here, the husband’s promise
did not rise to the level of a contract quantity of cases. Thus, here, the
husband’s promise didn't rise to the extent of a contract.
CONTENTIONS
ARGUMENTS
MADE FOR THE APPELLANT
The agreement was
simply a domestic arrangement between the couple till the husband came back to
European country (England). There was no agreement created on their separation.
Thence it had been not contractually binding. Also, there was no thought from
the wife’s point of view. Hence, there was no written agreement obligation from
the appellant’s point of view as well.
ARGUMENTS
MADE FOR THE RESPONDENT
The respondents
argued that a contract would possibly arise between a husband and a wife, in an
exceedingly similar manner as they'd with the other person, thus the adult
female was entitled to still receive the payments as per the verbal agreement
that the couple engaged before Mr. Balfour left for Ceylon.
CURRENT
STATUS OF THE JUDGEMENT
Balfour v Balfour is
one in all the leading cases in English law since it had been then set that
agreements between husband-wife aren't thought of as contracts since it's
probable that the two parties don't have a legal intent to make legal
relations. It is a land mark case, since it gave birth to the “doctrine to make
legal intentions”. This doctrine has been used later in several cases as a
precedent like within the case of Spellman v. Spellman.
CONCLUSION
The court concluded that there was no contract. It had been
just a domestic arrangement between the husband and wife since both the parties
didn't will produce legal relations the court control that there was no
contract. It had been just a domestic arrangement between the husband and the
wife since both the parties didn't will produce legal relations
0 Comments