| Citation | (1919) 2KB 517 |
| Date of Judgment | 25TH June 1919 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Case Type | Civil |
| Appellant | Mr. Balfour |
| Plaintiff | Mrs. Balfour |
| Bench | Atkin, Warrington and Duke J |
| Referred | Indian Contract Act,1872 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
In 1915, Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour, a couple from Ceylon (Sri Lanka), vacationed in England. Unfortunately, Mrs. Balfour fell seriously ill, subsequently Mr. Balfour would return to Ceylon while Mrs. Balfour remained in England for medical treatment. During this period, Mr. Balfour promised to pay her £30 as a maintenance fee monthly until her recovery and return to Ceylon. This agreement was forged when their relationship was harmonious. However, as their relationship soured, Mr. Balfour stopped making payments. Mrs. Balfour, seeking to enforce the agreement, took the matter to court in 1918. Eventually, their relationship deteriorated to the point of legal separation and divorce. Mrs. Balfour sued Mr. Balfour for his failure to fulfill the financial commitment he had initially promised in court
ISSUES
1)Is the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour legally valid?
2) Can a contract between spouses be enforced in a court of law?
3) Is Mr. Balfour legally obligated to fulfill the agreement he made with his wife?
ARGUMENTS
The appellant’s position was that the arrangement in question was a domestic understanding rather than a legally binding agreement. According to their argument, Mr. Balfour had no intention of establishing a legal relationship or formal contract between himself and his wife.
In response, the defendant contended that the wife should receive £30, as the husband had entered into a domestic arrangement by proposing to pay her £30, and she accepted this offer by remaining in England
JUDGEMENT
The ruling deemed the arrangement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour to be purely domestic in nature. While acknowledging that Mrs. Balfour might have had a strong case under normal circumstances, the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal held that their agreement lacked legal standing. The court emphasized that agreements between spouses are not intended to establish a legal relationship and are therefore unenforceable in court. The absence of the intention to create a legally binding contract rendered their arrangement void. The initial court decision favored the plaintiff, Mrs. Balfour, and ruled against the defendant, Mr. Balfour. The court found that Mr. Balfour’s commitment to provide financial support was legally enforceable. The exchange of money on a monthly basis, which formed the basis of their agreement, was deemed lawful and established legally binding responsibilities. Consequently, the earlier decision was overturned, concluding that there was no legally enforceable contract, only a typical household arrangement that could not be legally pursued. Lord Atkin’s ruling established the fundamental requirement of an intention to be a party to a legally enforceable contract for all transactions. Furthermore, the unilateral nature of the contract, where Mrs. Balfour made no promises in return for Mr. Balfour’s maintenance payment, played a significant role.
REFERENCES
Online sources: Hein online and JSTOR
This Article is written by Thanmaya Reddy, School of Law, CHRIST(Deemed to be University) Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
