Facts of case

Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour were husband and wife from Ceylon ( Sri Lanka) and once they went for a vacation to England in the year 1915

But unfortunately during the course of vacation, Mrs. Balfour fell ill; she was in urgent need of medical attention.

Then they decided and made an agreement that Mr. Balfour would return to Ceylon and his wife, that is Mrs. Balfour shall stay back until she recovers from her illness.

They had also decided that during that period of time Mr. Balfour shall pay Mrs. Balfour 30 pounds as maintenance every month until everything falls into place, unless she recovers and returns back to Ceylon.

Now this understanding and interpretation was made when their relationship was fine and there was not any sort of sourness in between them.

But slowly and gradually their relationship deteriorated which resulted in non- payment of the amount of maintenance by Mr. Balfour to Mrs. Balfour

But Mrs. Balfour decided to sought to enforce the agreement and moved to the court.

Mr. Balfour wrote the letter to his wife suggesting to make their separation permanent.

And at later point of time they separated legally, that means they were divorced.

Mrs. Balfour had brought the action against Mr. Balfour for non-payment of the amount he was supposed to pay in court of law in the year 1918.


Issues Raised In The Case

Did Mr. Balfour ever intended to enter into any sort of agreement with his wife, Mrs. Balfour?

Is the agreement between Mr. And Mrs. Balfour valid in nature at all?

Does the contract between husband and wife enforceable in court of law?



 
 
Procedural History Of The Case

Initially when Mrs. Balfour had moved to the court in order to seek her maintenance, an additional judge of Kings Bench division presided by Justice Sargant, held that the husband is indeed liable and is under obligation to provide maintenance and support to his wife. It had held that there existed a valid contract between Mr. And Mrs. Balfour. Basically, the lower court ruled in favour of the plaintiff (Mrs. Balfour) and against the defendant (Mr. Balfour).The defendants promise to pay the maintenance was enforceable.

The consideration to the agreement of monthly transfer of the amount of money was lawful and held binding obligations. So, in the month of July,1919 she received the decree nisi and subsequently in the month of December, the order for alimony. The lower court had observed and had held the contract binding but Mr. Balfour appealed in higher court.

What Was Held In Balfour Vs. Balfour (1919)

It was held that the characteristics of the agreement was purely and completely domestic in nature, Lord Justice Atkin held that when a husband and a wife enter into an agreement they never intend to create a legal relationship. Both the parties must have an intention to create a legal relationship while entering into an agreement, then only it becomes enforceable in court of law.
Moreover, a court will never take into account the domestic agreements between spouses made in daily course life.
The agreement was outside the realm of contractsaltogether.

Judgement
As mentioned above, the agreement was not legally binding, the agreements made in personal family relationships are not counted in law of contract the agreements made between spouses to provide capitals or monetary benefits does not hold any legally binding authority. Generally, spouses or parties to marriage do make arrangements for personal and household expenses, but there is never a legal instinct in those things.

The court of Appeal had unanimously ruled that there was no such enforceable agreement between Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour. Subsequently, Mr Balfour was allowed. Basically, the law revolves around the concept that there must be an intention on the part of both the parties to create a legal relationship in order to validate a contract. This was the ratio decidendi of the case. Whether the parties intended to create a legal relationship or not is determined by examining the circumstances that existed, under which the execution of the contract was done.