AHMAD IBRAHIM KULLIYYAH OF LAWS LAW OF CONTRACT 1 CASE BRIEFING 2nd EDITION

MUHAMMAD SYAQIL BIN IBERAHIM 1210777 LLB

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 Fact: Mr Balfour was a civil engineer, and worked for the Government as the Director of Irrigation in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Mrs Balfour was living with him. In 1915, they both came back to England during Mr Balfour's leave. But Mrs Balfour got rheumatic arthritis. Her doctor advised her to stay, because a jungle climate was not conducive to her health. As Mr Balfour's boat was about to set sail, he promised her 30 a month until she came back to Ceylon. They drifted apart, and Mr Balfour wrote saying it was better that they remain apart. In March 1918, Mrs Balfour sued him to keep up with the monthly 30 payments. In July she got a decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimony. Judgement: The Court of appeal unanimously held that there was no enforceable agreement, although the depth of their reasoning differed. Warrington LJ delivered his opinion first, the core part being this passage. The matter really reduces itself to an absurdity when one considers it,

because if we were to hold that there was a contract in this case we should have to hold that with regard to all the more or less trivial concerns of life where a wife, at the request of her husband, makes a promise to him, that is a promise which can be enforced in law. All I can say is that there is no such contract here. These two people never intended to make a bargain which could be enforced in law. The husband expressed his intention to make this payment, and he promised to make it, and was bound in honour to continue it so long as he was in a position to do so. The wife on the other hand, so far as I
2

can see, made no bargain at all. That is in my opinion sufficient to dispose of the case.

Case Analysis: The case is often cited in conjunction with Merritt v Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760; [1970] 1 WLR 1211. Here the court distinguished the case from Balfour v Balfour on the fact that Mr and Mrs Merritt, although still married, were estranged at the time the agreement was made and therefore any agreement between them was made with the intention to create legal relations. Both cases are often quoted examples of the principle of precedent. Regarding to the Contract Act 1950, in section 41, it tells about the person by whom promise is to be performed. Relate to this case, it said that it has no intention to create a legal relation. Personal View: In my opinion, I agree with the judgement laid out. They as the spouse needed to make a contract if they really had an intention to create the legal relation. This case should be followed as the leading case. The courts view also is correct because they made the contract based on their mutual trust and love. Court will defined that the contract made by spouse are not legally binding as they made the contract based on their trust and anything come afterwards will be considered as family matters.

Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6, [1970] 1 WLR 1211 Fact: Mr. Merritt and his wife jointly owned a house. Mr. Merritt left to live with another woman. They made an agreement (signed) that Mr. Merritt would pay Mrs. Merritt a 40 monthly sum, and eventually transfer the house to her, if Mrs. Merritt kept up the monthly mortgage payments. When the mortgage was paid Mr. Merritt refused to transfer the house. Judgement: The Court of Appeal held that nature of the dealings, and the fact that the Merritts were separated when they signed their contract, allowed the court to assume that their agreement was more than a domestic arrangement. As the document was signed, it showed that they had an intention to enforce what they had agreed before. Furthermore, they were not been together as they were going to separate would make their intention was stronger. Case Analysis: Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6 is an English contract law case, on the matter of creating legal relations. While under the principles laid out in Balfour v Balfour, domestic agreements between spouses are rarely legally enforceable; this principle was rebutted where two spouses who formed an agreement over their matrimonial home were not on good terms. This is shown that they have an intended to make a legal relation as they signed the contract. Regarding to the Contract Act 1950, in section 41, it tells about the person by whom promise is to be performed. Contradict to the principle; in this case, they had an intention to create a legal relation because they have a strong proof to tell that they had an intention to be legally bound.
4

Personal View: I believe that both parties had an intention to create a legal relation as they were about to separate and also signed a contract showed that they were really serious about entering into a contract. This case is an exception for the presumption that parties do not intend to create a legal relation. Even this was considered as a family matter, but this exception given if we examine the fact and background of the case. In this case, they were about to separate and the agreement was expressed by both.

Simpkins v Pays [1955] 3 All ER 10 Fact: The plaintiff enjoyed entering competitions run in Sunday newspaper. When he took lodgings in the defendants house, she and her granddaughter began to do the competition with him, sharing the cost of entry. The plaintiff filled in the form in the name of the defendant, and she promised to share any winnings. Eventually, one of the entries was successful, and the defendant won 750. The plaintiff claimed a third of the sum as his share of the prize, but the defendant refused, claiming that she had not intended to be legally bound by the agreement. Judgement: The court held that the plaintiffs claim, considering that they had all contributed to the competition with the expectation that any prize would be shared. The presumption or principle here was both parties had not intended to create legal relation. But in this social agreement, the presumption was rebutted as both parties had agreed to share the prize and contributed to win the entries. Case Analysis: In this case, once again, the presumption was rebutted as the plaintiff was actually has intended to create a legal relation as his expected that any prize could be won and he also had contributed to win the entries. Although the coupon sent in the defendant's name was successful, the competition was not, in fact, won by the forecast of either the plaintiff or the defendant, because the middle line was composed, not by either of the parties, but by the defendant's grand-daughter. In Contract Act 1950, in section 2, the section
6

mention about promisor not bound to perform unless reciprocal promise ready and willing. In this case, the plaintiff had done some consideration that is payment for those entries. In this stage, it was said he was ready and willing. Personal View: I my opinion, this case is still relevant as the presumption once again rebutted in this case. The presumption was both parties were not intended to create a legal relation. But this case is the exception for this principle. This is shown that this case is a leading case that would lead cases like this. This principle also should be followed. In addition, the plaintiff had contributed in this case and I consider it as a consideration given by the plaintiff. That is why the defendant was liable for breach of contract.