Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
LAW OF CONTRACT
CASE ANALYSIS ON
BALFOUR V. BALFOUR
FINAL DRAFT
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Also I would like to thank the Prestigious Library of RMLNLU with the material of which I
was able to supplement this Project.
I would like to take out this moment lastly but certainly not the least to Thank my Parents and
the almighty under whose blessings I concluded this Project. I acknowledge the support of all
the aforesaid.
Thank You
Indu Jatav
2
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. FACTS IN DETAIL
3. JUDGEMENT
4. ISSUE RAISED
5. RATIO
6. CRITIQUE
3
Case Name – Balfour Vs. Balfour
JUDGES :
1. Lord Atkin
2. Lord Warrington
3. Lord Duke
4
INTRODUCTION
571. This case has been authority in itself for the principles set in the case not only in
England but also in our country where it is cited in several cases and accepted by Hon’ble
Courts. We have discussed this case in detail in several cases discussed later by us. Balfour v.
Balfour, three quarters of a century after it was decided, remains a leading case.
Mr. Balfour is the Defendant and Mrs. Balfour is the Plaintiff in the given case. The two lived
in Ceylon and visited England on a vacation. The plaintiff remained in England for medical
treatment. The defendant has agreed to send her a specific amount of money each month until
she could return. The defendant later asked to remain separated. Mrs. Balfour sued for
restitution of her conjugal rights and for alimony equal to the amount her husband had agreed
to send.
Mrs. Balfour obtained a decree nisi and five months later was granted an order for alimony.
The lower court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and held that the defendant’s
promise to send money was enforceable. The court held that Mrs. Balfour’s consent was
sufficient consideration to render the contract enforceable and the defendant appealed.
5
FACTS IN DETAIL
The plaintiff sued the defendant (her husband) for money which she claimed to be due in
respect of an agreed allowance of 30. a month. The alleged agreement was entered into under
the following circumstances. The parties were married in August, 1900. The husband, a civil
engineer, had a post under the Government of Ceylon as· Director of Irrigation, and after the
marriage he and his wife went to Ceylon, and lived there together until the_year 1915, except
that in 1906 they paid a short visit to this country, and in 1908 the wife came to England in
order to undergo an operation, after which she returned to Ceylon. In November, 1915, she
came to this country with her husband, who was on leave. They remained in England until
August, 1916, when the husband's leave was up and he had to return. The wife however on
the doctor's advice remained in England. This understanding was made while their
relationship was fine; however the relationship later soured. The plaintiff alleged that the
defendant before returning to Ceylon entered into the above agreement. The parties
remaining apart, the plaintiff subsequently obtained a. decree nisi for restitution of conjugal
JUDGEMENT
Held, that the alleged agreement did not constitute a legal contract, but was only an ordinary
domestic arrangement which could not be sued upon. Mutual promises made in the ordinary
domestic relationship of husband and wife do not of necessity give cause for action on a
contract.
6
DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT JUDGES
Sargant J. ( Additional judge ) held that the husband was under an obligation to support his
wife, and the parties had contracted that the extent of that obligation should be defined in terms
of so much a month. The consent of the wife to that arrangement was a sufficient consideration
to constitute a contract which could be sued upon . He accordingly gave judgment for the
plaintiff.
Warrington L.J. held that it was merely a domestic arrangement such as may be made every
day between a husband and wife who are living together in friendly intercourse. i.e. These two
people never intended to make a bargain which could be enforced in law. There was not any
Duke L.J. held that there was no consideration moving on the part of the wife to husband or
promise by the husband to the wife which was sufficient to sustain this action founded B on
contract. He further said that at the time , the agreement took place there was not any separation
between them and the period of absence was a period of absence as between husband and wife
living in amity.
Atkin L.J held that the promise here was not intended by either party to be attended by legal
consequences. I think the onus was upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not established any
contract. He said that it was only a parol agreement which won’t result in any contract. He
further said the judgment of the Court below was wrong and that this appeal should be allowed.
7
ISSUE RAISED
1. Whether there was any legal intention to create the above said contract
or not ?
In this view Barrington-Ward K.O. and Du Parcq argued for the appellant that there
was not any legal intention to create the contract as the agreement was purely domestic
agreement intended to take effect until the wife should rejoin her husband.
It cannot be regarded as a binding contract. The wife gave no consideration for the
promise.
On the evidence it is submitted that this was a temporary domestic arrangement caused
by the absence of Husband abroad, and was not intended to have a contractual
operation,
This is not contract and this is not contract because the parties did not intend that ---
It is essential that both the parties should intend that an agreement be legally binding
so as to become enforceable.
2. Was there any separation between them at the time, agreement between
This issue was tackle by judement of Lord Duke . He said that at the time agreement
took place there was not any separation between them and the period of absence was a
8
3. Does the fact that they were husband and wife matter ?
Yes as a matter of fact this matters that they were married because court does not
interfere the spouses in day to day affairs. To light the above statement Lord Atkn said
that there are agreements between parties which do not result in contracts within the
meaning of that term in our law. The ordinary example is where two parties agree to
take a walk together, or where there is an offer and an acceptance of hospitality. Nobody
would suggest in ordinary circumstances that those agreements result in what we know
as a contract, and one of the most usual forms of agreement which does not constitute
RATIO
Agreements made between husbands and wives are not generally contracts as the parties do
not intend to be legally bound by the agreements.
9
CRITIQUE
The agreement was not enforceable because the parties did not intend to create legal relations. This
is so even though there may have been consideration. Agreements between spouses ‘are not
contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal
consequences.’ The parties, ‘in the inception of the arrangement, never intended that they
should be sued upon.’ To permit them to be enforced would burden the small courts with
numerous claims. Domestic agreements of this nature [between spouses] are outside the realm
of contract altogether. Atkin LJ also noted that ‘The consideration that really obtains for
[spouses] is that natural love and affection which counts for so little in these cold courts.’ The
10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SITES
1. www.lawnix.com
2. www.australiancontractlaw.com
3. www.ssconline.com
4. www.indiakanoon.com
5. www.manupatra.com
BOOKS
1. Contracts and specific relief Act by Avatar Singh
11