Case summary of Balfour v Balfour [] 2 KB relating to intention to create legal relations in contract law. 2 K. B.. KING’S BENCH DIVISION. [IN TBE COURT OF Al’l’EAL.] BALFOUR v. however on the doctor’s advice remained in England. On. c. A. Balfour v. Balfour [] 2 KB (Consideration-Intention to create legal relations) Facts: A husband was employed in Ceylon. He returned.

Author: Kagazilkree Yozshuramar
Country: Burundi
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Music
Published (Last): 25 July 2010
Pages: 272
PDF File Size: 5.64 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.33 Mb
ISBN: 537-6-78833-563-9
Downloads: 11182
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Grokree

To my mind it would be of the worst possible example to hold that agreements such as this resulted in legal obligations which could be enforced in the Courts.

For the reasons given by my brethren it appears to me to be plainly established that the promise here was not intended by either party to be attended by legal consequences.

Contract Law Casenote: Balfour v Balfour UK

As there was no intent to be legally bound when the agreement was agreed upon, there can be no legally binding contract. Inthey both came back to England during Mr Balfour’s leave. All I can say is that the small Courts of this country would 5571 to be multiplied one hundredfold if these arrangements were held to result in legal obligations. He returned with his wife to England on leave, but she was unable to go back to Ceylon with him baldour to medical reasons.

That is in my opinion sufficient to dispose of the case.

Notify me of new comments via email. You are commenting using your WordPress.

Balfour v Balfour

balforu At first instance, Sargant J held that Mr Balfour was under an obligation to support his wife. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. Their promises are not sealed with seals and sealing wax. But in this case there was no separation agreement at all. The parties were living together, the wife intending to return.


The formula which was stated in this case to support the claim of the lady was this: For these reasons I think the judgment of the Court below was wrong and that this appeal should be allowed. Nevertheless they are not contracts, and they are not contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences.

It is quite common, and it is the natural and inevitable result of the relationship of husband and wife, that the two spouses should make arrangements between themselves – agreements such as are in dispute in this action – agreements balfur allowances, by which the husband agrees that he will pay to his wife a certain sum of money, per week, or per nalfour, or per year, to cover either her own expenses or the necessary expenses of the household and of the children of the marriage, and in which the wife promises either expressly or impliedly to apply the balflur for the purpose for which it is given.

Court of Appeal Civil Division. I think the onus was upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not established any contract. Balfour v Balfour [] 2 KB Warrington LJ delivered his opinion first, the core part being this passage.

Networked Knowledge – Contract Law Casenotes

Atkin held that the law of contracts is not made for personal family relationships. The wife on the other hand, so far as I can see, made no bargain balfor all. Jones v Padavatton []. It is impossible to say that where the relationship of husband and wife exists, and promises are exchanged, they must be deemed to be promises of a contractual nature.

The defence to this action on the alleged contract is that the defendant, the husband, entered into no contract with his wife, and for the determination of that it is necessary to remember that there are agreements between parties which do not result in contracts within the meaning of that term in our law. To my mind those agreements, or many of them, do not result in contracts at all, and they do not result in contracts even though there may be what as between other parties would constitute consideration for the agreement.


That was so because it was a domestic agreement between husband and wife, and it meant the onus of proof was on balfuor plaintiff, Mrs Balfour. That is a well-known definition, and it constantly happens, I think, that such arrangements made between husband and wife are arrangements in which there are mutual promises, or in which there is kn in form within the definition that I have mentioned. Consideration-Intention to create legal relations.

She did not rebut the presumption.

They are not sued upon, not because the parties are reluctant to enforce their legal rights when the agreement is broken, but because the parties, in the inception of the arrangement, never intended that they should be sued upon.

Both cases are often quoted examples of the principle of precedent. You are commenting baofour your Facebook account. In the Court below the plaintiff conceded that down to the time of her suing in the Divorce Division there was no separation, and that the period of absence was a period of absence as between husband and wife living in amity.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here By using this site, you agree to lb Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Giving up of that which was not a right was not a consideration. Such agreements are made in amity, grounded on domestic relations between the parties and obligations arising out of those relations; and no legal consequences could reasonably have been contemplated by them for breach of such agreements.

Email required Address never made public. You are commenting using your Twitter account.