| Case Name | Balfour v. Balfour |
| Citation | [1919] 2KB 571 |
| Date of judgment | 25 June 1919 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Plaintiff | Mrs. Balfour |
| Appellant | Mr. Balfour |
| Bench | Atkin, Warrington and Duke J |
Background
In this case, it held that the agreement which is merely made by domestic promise can never be enforceable by law. Thus the promise made by the spouse in the relationship can’t be said as he had a legal intention to create a legal agreement. If the court starts validating such promises then it would be very difficult to judge which promise has legal intention because it would lead to bulks of cases to the court because everyone would approach the court for enforcement of such promises. Hence a mere domestic agreement made by the husband, cannot lead to a Valid Contract, and at the same time, it will become problematic for society to fulfill that promise as sometimes promises are made in emotional breakdown or moments of Happiness, either of the spouses or any family member might promise or agree to do something which he in the future is unable to fulfill. This might create a lot of confusion and make it difficult to complete promises in the future.
Facts of the Case
Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour were residing in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). They went to England for vacation in 1915 where Mrs. Balfour got ill and needed medical attention. Due to illness, she could not return to her hometown with her husband Mr. Balfour, she stayed in England. Her husband promises to provide 30 pounds every month so that she can fulfill her needs and take care of herself in the absence of her husband. But after months their relationship started souring and some differences arose between the couple due to marital problems and clashes Mr. Balfour stopped sending her the money that he promised to pay to keep their relationship sourced in his due absence. Mrs. Balfour filed the case. She demanded to make the agreement enforceable by the court of law as Mr. Balfour decided to give her divorce But Mrs. Balfour still wanted continuance of maintenance which she was supposed to receive from Mr. Balfour as a part of his agreement. This case now went to the Court of Law.
Issue raised
- Did Mr. Balfour enter into any sort of agreement with his wife, Mrs. Balfour?
- Does the couple have a valid agreement to keep their relationship sourced?
- Is the contract enforceable in a court of law?
Initial judgment
Mrs. Balfour first filed a court petition to have the agreement enforced as the promise made by her husband was only on the terms that she would remain in England and now when her husband has stopped sending her the money she is facing a problem in her livelihood. The court held that the husband is liable to pay maintenance to his wife. The court also held that the couple’s agreement is legitimate and the husband is bound to provide maintenance amount to his wife.
Mr. Balfour’s field appeal in the high court
Plaintiff Argument
Mr. Balfour said that the agreement which was domestic in nature couldn’t be legally enforced as the promises that are made in a relationship don’t hold any legal obligation and moreover he has no intention to create any legal agreement through which he could not be bound under any legal pact. It’s necessary to have the legal intention to create a valid contract thus he is not liable to pay any such amount to his wife.
Defendant Argument
Mrs. Balfour’s responded that she agreed to stay in England on the promise made by Mr. Balfour is to provide 30 pounds as the sum of money for the domestic agreement for her Maintenance Mrs. Balfour believed that although they were married, Mr. Balfour should provide her support since he pledged to do so. But now Mr. Balfour decided to give her divorce and Mrs. Balfour still wanted continuance of maintenance which she was supposed to receive from Mr. Balfour as a part of his agreement.
Court Judgment
Three justices- Atkin, Warrington, and Duke J unanimously concluded that their agreement had no legal understanding in the eyes of the law as husband and wife had no intentions to establish any legal agreement. The promises established between any wife and husband or father and son can’t be treated as a valid contract. To establish a valid contract there should be some basis for which needs to be true.
- Offer & acceptance
- Intention to create a legal obligation
- Consideration
- Parties’ Competence
- Free consent
The Appellate court held that the agreement between parties is not enforceable by law as there is no intention to create a legal obligation between parties, so this is not a contract. The court thought that these unregistered kinds of oral agreements could only be termed Simple Domestic Promises or Social Agreements. Thus, cannot lead to legal consequences and is consequently not enforceable by Law. Lord Atkin established a universal rule that the intention between parties to legally enforce a contract can only make a contract valid.
Conclusion
Balfour v. Balfour acted as a landmark judgment that made clear that any domestic or social agreement can’t be enforceable by law. This case still is very important because it gives birth to the principle of legal intention to enter into the contract It specified that when there is no intention between parties to create a legal relationship then there is no contract. It acted as a precedent for future cases to solve all the disputes concerning a mere promise and a contract. It elucidated that generally all the domestic agreements are merely promises and cannot be enforced in the court of law.
Balfour v. Balfour still has significance importance in the 21st century as now the families are becoming nuclear and less attached focusing more on money and in this circumstance a promisor may cheat the promisee by making false promises because such promises or Social agreements are not enforceable by law
Reference
http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/6FkzJYSp
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7508-case-analysis-of-balfour-v-s-balfour.html
This Article is written by Priyanshi Bharti student of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
