Assignment

Assignment Topic: Case Analysis

Course Title: Law of Contract I

Course Code: Law 101

Semester: Spring 2020

Submitted to: Nadia Rahaman

Lecturer, Department of Law

East West University

Submitted by: Md. Sad Bin Abi

I’D: 2016-1-66-062

Email: aanupom92@gmail.com

Date of Submission: 08-05-2020

1
 Assignment

Case No. 01

Name of the Case:

Balfour V. Balfour 2 K.B. 571 (Court of Appeal 1919)

Fact of the Case:

The parties were a married couple (Mr.Balfour and Mrs.Balfour). The Defendant and plaintiff
lived in Ceylon where the defendant worked. At the time of 1915, while the defendant was on
leave, the couple returned to England. When it was the time of returning to Ceylon, the plaintiff
was advised not to return because of her health (her doctor advised not to leave). Prior to the
defendant returning, he promised to send the plaintiff 30 Euro per month as maintenance cost.
But the parties relationship deteriorated and they began living apart. Then the plaintiff brings suit
to enforce the defendant’s promise to pay her the 30 Euro. In this case, the lower Court found the
parties agreement constituted a contract.

Issue of the Case:

Whether the husbands promise to pay 30 Euro per month constituted a valid contract or not.

Judgment of the Case:

It was held that the husband’s promise to pay 30 Euro to the wife did not constituted a valid
contract and it was the decision of the Appellant Court. But the Lower Court found that there
was a valid contract which can be enforceable.

Reason behind the Judgment of the Case:

First of all, the agreement was purely a social and domestic agreement between the parties.
Secondly, this agreement sometimes termed as allowance, but they got the divorced. Thirdly,
these sorts of agreements are not to be deemed as contracts because the parites did not intend that
they should be attended by legal consequences, because there has the presence of love and
affection between the parties. Fourthly, if these promises are to be deemed as contract then the
flood gates will open.

Case No.02

Name of the Case:

2
The Montreal Gas Company V. Vasey [1900] A.C. 595

Fact of the Case:

On the 15th December 1886 the Appellants entered into a contract with the respondent for the
sale to him of ammonia Cal liquor which is produced by them. The manufactured the gas in their
industry. According to the terms policy, the Appellant agreed to deliver it to the Respondent
during a period of five years from the 1st of May 1887 and they should provide all the ammonia
Cal liquor which will be manufactured at their works. On December 20, 1886 five days after the
execution of the contract, the president of the company wrote to the Vasey that “referring to the
contract made with you on the 15th December for the sale of ammonia Cal liquor, I may say that
if we are satisfied with you as a customer then we would favorably consider an application from
you at the expiration of the term, for a renewal of the same for another period”. Then at the
expiration of the contract of December 15 the company refused Vasey’s application for a
renewal. Afterwards, Vasey brought his action against the company seeking to recover the
damages for the alleged breaches of the contract of December 15, 1886. Moreover, Vasey
alleged that the company bound to do according to the terms of the letter of 20 December.

Issue of the Case:

Whether the letter constitute a contract or not and the agreement (statement of favorable) has the
legal force or not.

Judgment of the Case:

It was held that the letter did not constitute a contract and the agreement susceptible of legal
enforcement.

Reason behind the Judgment of the Case:

First of all, if we try to summarize the fact then can see that A company agreed with B that on
the expiration of B’s existing contract, it would favorably consider an application by B for
renewal of his contract. Therefore, it was held that the agreement was not intended to bind the
company to renew its contract with B and that is why it does not impose an obligation upon the
company. Moreover, if we try to observe section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872 then it also
provides the notion that “all contracts are agreement but all agreements are not contract” (though
this Contract Act, 1872 did not use as an Act on that particular time, but the general principle
was same). According to the section 2 of the Contract Act, 1872; only an agreement which is
enforceable by law is a contract. Besides, for this case it has to be observed that the terms of the
agreement must be capable of performance.