Judgement in the Case: Balfour Vs. Balfour
- The bench, consisting of Duke LJ, Warrington LJ, and Atkin LJ, looked into the matter. The court analyzed the set of evidence submitted by both sides in this case.
- In court, Mrs. Balfour stated that the promise of Mr. Balfour had promised to send 30 GBP per month as maintenance towards her medical treatment could be inferred by the set of letters as evidence before the court.
- However, Mr. Warrington, L.J., one of the judges, questioned the validity of that agreement, whether that agreement fulfilled all the requirements to be present in a contract to make it valid, or whether Mr. Balfour made a mere promise that may be made in the daily course of life between the husband and wife.
- Adding to his remark, Mr. Warrington, L.J., also said that after going through the facts of the case, it could be interpreted that no contract was created between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour “in express terms.” Everything that happened was just a mere series of promises between the friendly married couple. He also added that the decision given by the lower court judge, Justice Sargant, in this case, could not stand and that the appeal should be allowed.
- The other judge on the panel, Atkin, L.J., stated Mr. Balfour (the appellant) had not intended the agreement to be legally binding at all, and there could be an agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour, but as there was no legal intention, the contract can’t be validated. So, it was just a mere set of promises made between the couple, and the same could not be called a contract. He also added that such kinds of agreements between husband and wife are very common and cannot be treated as contracts. He also said that the appeal by Mr. Balfour should be allowed.
- Duke, L.J., also agreed with both of the judges in the panel and added that the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour was made as usual as a happily married couple. The agreement was purely a domestic agreement with mutual consent. So, it could not be held legally binding at all.
- In the court of appeal, it was established by the judges that the ambit of the agreement made between husband and wife was purely domestic. The judge, Lord Justice Atkin, held that when the couple (Mr. and Mrs. Balfour) entered into an agreement, there was no intention to make it legally binding on each other.
- Furthermore, it was also established that a court will never take into account the domestic agreement between the husband and wife, which is usual in the daily course of life, and the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour was not under the scope of the contract in the given circumstances and facts.
- Hence, the court of appeals reversed the judgment passed by Justice Sargant of the lower court and gave the verdict in favor of Mr. Balfour.
Balfour Vs. Balfour: Case Analysis
The Balfour v. Balfour case is considered a landmark judgment because it dealt with creating a legally binding contract between a married couple. The judgment was decided in 1919, when the wife, Mrs. Balfour, filed the case in the lower court and got the judgment delivered against her husband, Mr. Balfour. However, Mr. Balfour appealed against the lower court’s judgment in the higher court, and the court of appeals reversed the judgment delivered by the lower court. The crux of the judgment establishes that the intention is really important to enter into any kind of contract, and the promise made between the husband and wife in the ordinary course of life does not come under the legal purview of contract law, nor is it legally enforceable if the intention to form a legally binding contract is absent.
Geeky Takeaways:
- The contract has established that to make a valid contract, there must be an intention to create a legal relationship between the parties to the contract; if such intention is absent, the contract shall be null and void.
- The Balfour vs. Balfour case is a landmark case that establishes that intention is really important to enter into any kind of contract, and the promise made between the husband and wife in the ordinary course of life does not come under the legal purview of contract law.
- The doctrine is made for public policy and not for domestic agreements. It can also be established that a court can never indulge in any sort of small issue like this between the family.
- This case is one of the most significant judgments in the whole of judicial history, which gave birth to the doctrine of intention to create legal relations and is used as a landmark case while referring to present cases.
Table of Content
- Facts of the Case: Balfour Vs. Balfour
- Issue in the Case: Balfour Vs. Balfour
- Contention from the Side of Mr. Balfour: Appellant in this Case
- Contention from the Side of Mrs. Balfour: Respondent in this Case
- Judgement in the Case: Balfour Vs. Balfour
- Conclusion