Balfour v Balfour [1919]
Share
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 is a landmark decision in contract law, emphasising the importance of clear intention to create legally enforceable agreements, especially in the context of domestic arrangements.
Mr Balfour, a civil engineer, and Mrs Balfour were married, and they lived in Ceylon. Mrs Balfour developed rheumatoid arthritis during their stay in England, and Mr Balfour's job required him to return to Ceylon. Before his departure, he orally promised to pay his wife £30 a month until she rejoined him in Ceylon. However, the couple later drifted apart, and Mrs Balfour sued for the continuation of the monthly payments after Mr Balfour ceased to fulfil his promise.
The Court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no enforceable agreement. The judges provided different reasoning, but they all concurred in rejecting the claim. The court emphasised the presumption against legal relations in domestic agreements. The judges argued that not all agreements between spouses result in legally enforceable contracts. In this case, the court was reluctant to intervene in what they considered to be a domestic arrangement without a clear intention to create legal obligations.
The judges stressed the absence of an intention to affect legal relations between the parties. They held that the promises made between spouses, especially those related to domestic matters, do not necessarily give rise to legal obligations unless there is a clear and unequivocal intention to create a legally binding contract.
The court placed the onus of proof on Mrs Balfour to establish the existence of a contract. The judges found that she failed to demonstrate the necessary intention on the part of both parties to create a legally enforceable agreement.
Balfour v Balfour is often cited as a leading case illustrating the principle that domestic agreements are presumed not to be legally binding unless there is clear evidence of an intention to create legal relations. It sets a precedent for distinguishing between domestic arrangements and contracts, emphasising the importance of parties' intentions in determining the enforceability of agreements.
This case is frequently referenced in conjunction with Merritt v Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760, which involved a similar issue but was distinguished based on the estranged relationship of the parties at the time of the agreement. Together, these cases provide important guidance on the application of contract law principles in domestic contexts.
Mr Balfour, a civil engineer, and Mrs Balfour were married, and they lived in Ceylon. Mrs Balfour developed rheumatoid arthritis during their stay in England, and Mr Balfour's job required him to return to Ceylon. Before his departure, he orally promised to pay his wife £30 a month until she rejoined him in Ceylon. However, the couple later drifted apart, and Mrs Balfour sued for the continuation of the monthly payments after Mr Balfour ceased to fulfil his promise.
The Court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no enforceable agreement. The judges provided different reasoning, but they all concurred in rejecting the claim. The court emphasised the presumption against legal relations in domestic agreements. The judges argued that not all agreements between spouses result in legally enforceable contracts. In this case, the court was reluctant to intervene in what they considered to be a domestic arrangement without a clear intention to create legal obligations.
The judges stressed the absence of an intention to affect legal relations between the parties. They held that the promises made between spouses, especially those related to domestic matters, do not necessarily give rise to legal obligations unless there is a clear and unequivocal intention to create a legally binding contract.
The court placed the onus of proof on Mrs Balfour to establish the existence of a contract. The judges found that she failed to demonstrate the necessary intention on the part of both parties to create a legally enforceable agreement.
Balfour v Balfour is often cited as a leading case illustrating the principle that domestic agreements are presumed not to be legally binding unless there is clear evidence of an intention to create legal relations. It sets a precedent for distinguishing between domestic arrangements and contracts, emphasising the importance of parties' intentions in determining the enforceability of agreements.
This case is frequently referenced in conjunction with Merritt v Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760, which involved a similar issue but was distinguished based on the estranged relationship of the parties at the time of the agreement. Together, these cases provide important guidance on the application of contract law principles in domestic contexts.
