Case Study: Balfour v. Balfour

By Sahil Kumar 6 Minutes Read

Citation:  [1919] 2 KB 571

Court: Court of Appeal

Date of Judgment: December 16, 1919.

Bench: Lord Justice Warrington, Lord Justice Duke and Lord Justice Atkin 

The case of Balfour v. Balfour provides an answer to one of the very important essentials of a contract. The intention to create a legal relation plays a vital role in justifying the validity of a contract.

Facts

• The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her husband, claiming he owed her money based on a verbal agreement. According to this agreement, he promised to give her £30 a month if she agreed to support herself without asking him for any additional maintenance.

• The husband lived in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) due to his government job. The plaintiff had moved to Ceylon with him, but in 1915 they returned to England while he was on leave. In 1916, he went back to Ceylon, leaving her in England because she needed to stay there temporarily due to her medical complications.

• The plaintiff claimed that before her husband returned to Ceylon, he made the agreement with her. As they continued to live apart, the plaintiff eventually obtained a decree nisi for the restitution of conjugal rights and an order for alimony. The husband then appealed this decision.

‘

Decision of King’s Bench Division

Justice Sargant ruled that the husband had an obligation to support his wife and that they had agreed to quantify this obligation as a specific monthly amount. The wife’s agreement to this arrangement was deemed sufficient consideration to form a binding contract. Consequently, he ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal determined that the alleged agreement was not a legal contract but merely a typical domestic arrangement, which could not be legally enforced. They stated that mutual promises made within the ordinary domestic relationship of husband and wife do not necessarily create grounds for legal action. Therefore, the decision by Judge Sargant was reversed, and the appeal was allowed.

Key Legal Issues Discussed

• Does a typical domestic arrangement constitute a contract?

NO

Lord Justice Henry Duke referred to Jolly v. Rees¹ and Debenham v. Mellon² and held that the husband did not enter into a contract with his wife. It is important to recognize that some agreements between parties do not qualify as contracts under the law. A common example is when two people agree to take a walk together or when someone offers and another accepts hospitality. Typically, these agreements are not considered contracts. One of the most usual types of non-contractual agreements are those made between husband and wife. 

It is natural and common for spouses to make arrangements between themselves, such as agreements for allowances where the husband agrees to pay his wife a certain amount of money weekly, monthly, or yearly to cover her expenses or the household’s and children’s expenses. The wife, in turn, may promise explicitly or implicitly to use the allowance for its intended purpose. In my view, these types of agreements do not result in contracts, even if they involve what would otherwise be considered valid consideration between other parties.

• Is intention to create a legal contract an essential in a valid contract?

YES

Lord Justice Atkinson recited that consideration in a contract can be defined as either a right, interest, profit, or benefit that accrues to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility that the other party gives, suffers, or undertakes. Often, arrangements between husband and wife involve mutual promises or formal consideration within this definition. However, these arrangements are not contracts because the parties did not intend for them to have legal consequences. 

It would set a poor precedent to treat such agreements as enforceable legal obligations. If agreements like the husband’s promise to give his wife an allowance of 30 shillings or 2 pounds per week were legally binding, it would mean that the wife could sue the husband if he failed to provide the allowance, and the husband could sue the wife for not using the allowance as agreed. This legal enforceability would complicate and potentially harm the personal and domestic nature of such arrangements.

1. (1863), 15 C. B. (N.S.) 628) ↩︎
2. (1880) 6 App. Cas. 24. ↩︎

Sahil Kumar