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: Daijar Grojind
Country: Portugal
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 23 February 2018
Pages: 181
PDF File Size: 12.28 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.88 Mb
ISBN: 696-8-83223-585-2
Downloads: 55524
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dajora

By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. I think that the parol evidence upon which the case turns does not establish a contract.

The husband has a right to withdraw the authority from his wife to pledge his credit. Sign In Don’t have an account? This understanding was made while their relationship was fine; however the relationship later soured. Warrington, concurring in the result, agreed substantially with Atkin, but added that there was no bargain of any kind made by Mrs.

Balfour sufficient for a binding contract. The matter really reduces itself to an absurdity when one considers it, because if we were to hold that there was a contract in this case we should have to hold that with regard to all the more or less trivial concerns of life where a wife, at the request of her husband, makes a promise to him, that is a promise which can be enforced in law.

For mb reasons I think the judgment of the Court below was wrong and that this appeal should be allowed. Giving up of that which was not a right was not a consideration. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: In July she got a decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimony.

If a reasonable person in the position of offree bakfour consider that the offer made by the offeror was intended to create legal relations, then offeror will be so bound by contract subject to fulfilment of other requirements. The common law does not regulate the form of agreements between spouses.


Their promises are not sealed with seals and sealing wax. Next Post Wood v. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. I cannot see that any benefit would result from it to either of the parties, but on the other hand it would lead to unlimited litigation in a relationship which should be obviously as far as possible protected from possibilities of that kind. Balfour v Balfour [] 2 KB Atkin held that the law of contracts is not made for personal family relationships.

As there was no intent to be legally bound when the agreement was agreed upon, there can be no legally binding contract. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here You are commenting using your WordPress.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Nevertheless they are not contracts, and they are not contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. Warrington LJ delivered his opinion first, the core part being this passage.

Balfour v Balfour

That was so because it was a domestic agreement between husband and wife, and it meant the onus of proof was on the plaintiff, Mrs Balfour. Email required Address never made public. 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.

The giving up of that which was not a right was not a consideration. 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. Contents [ show ]. I think, therefore, that the appeal must be allowed. I think that the letters do not evidence such a contract, or amplify the oral evidence which was given by the wife, which is not in dispute.


Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 K.B. 571 (25 June 1919)

The only question in this case is whether or not this promise was of such a class or not. In case of social engagements and family arrangements, there is a strong presumption that parties bbalfour have no intention 57 enter into legally enforceable contract.

You are commenting using your Twitter account. The wife on the other hand, so far as I can see, made no bargain at all. Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act s 2 1.

The suggestion is that the husband bound himself to pay 30l.

Post was not sent – check your email addresses! 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. Duke LJpreviously a Conservative party politician, became the president of the divorce division from to The lower court found that there was sufficient consideration in the consent of Mrs.

The Court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no enforceable agreement, although the depth of their reasoning differed.

Contract Law Casenote: Balfour v Balfour UK

This intention is to be determined objectively Smith v. Balfkur Mrs Balfour had developed rheumatic arthritis. He failed to make the payment and she sued him. Causes of action; Intention to create legal relations; Maintenance; Marriage; Oral contracts.

They drifted apart, and Mr Balfour wrote saying it was better that they remain apart. All I can say is that the small Courts of this country would baflour to be multiplied one hundredfold if these arrangements were held to result in legal obligations.