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.
|Published (Last):||24 May 2015|
|PDF File Size:||13.64 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Nevertheless they are not contracts, and they are not contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. I think, therefore, that the appeal must be allowed. The giving up of that which g not a right was not a consideration. The suggestion is that the husband bound himself to pay 30l. He returned with his wife to England on leave, but she was unable to go back to Ceylon with him due to medical reasons.
You are commenting using your Twitter account. In respect of these promises each house is a domain into which the King’s writ does not seek to run, and to which his officers do not seek to be admitted.
An agreement for separation when it is established balfojr involve mutual considerations. 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.
Contract law English contract case law in British law English enforceability case law Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases in case law. At first instance, Sargant J held that Mr Balfour was under an obligation to support his wife. The parties were husband and wife, and subject to all the conditions, in point of law, balfur in that relationship. But in this case there was no separation agreement at all. Warrington, concurring in the result, agreed substantially with Atkin, but added that there was no bargain of any kind made by Mrs.
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. To my mind those agreements, or many of them, do not result in contracts at all, and they do not result in contracts ablfour though there may be what as between other parties would constitute consideration for the agreement.
Statute of Frauds s 4.
Balfour v. Balfour  2 KB 571
This page was last edited baldour 27 Novemberat The consideration that really obtains for them is that natural love and affection which counts for so little in these cold Courts. The lower court found that there was sufficient consideration in the consent of Mrs.
You are commenting using your WordPress. Atkin holds that if the courts were to allow all wives to come to court when agreements had been broken balgour their husbands then the courts would be overrun with frivolous cases.
Consideration-Intention to create legal relations. He failed to make the balfouf and she sued him. The husband expressed his intention to make this payment, and he promised to make it, and was bound in honour to continue it so long as he was in a position to do so.
Views Read Edit View history. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Balfoir your comment here Therefore, consideration for the promise by the husband to pay the allowance was that Mrs.
I think that the letters do not evidence such a contract, or balfohr the oral evidence which was given by the wife, which is not in dispute. Warrington LJ delivered his opinion first, the core part being this passage. Promises in spousal or for that matter, family roles aren’t legally binding.
Balfour v Balfour  2 K.B. (25 June ) | Practical Law
Inthey both came back to England during Mr Balfour’s leave. Nobody would suggest in ordinary circumstances that those agreements result in what we know as a contract, and one of the most usual forms of agreement which does not constitute a contract appears to me to be the arrangements which are made between husband and wife. Balfour and his wife went to England for a vacation, and his wife became ill and needed medical attention. The only question in this case is whether or not this promise was of such a class or not.
The parties were living together, the wife intending to return. Mrs Balfour was living with him.
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 for allowances, by which the husband agrees that he will pay to his wife a certain sum of money, per week, or per month, 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 allowance for the purpose for which it is given.
I think the onus was upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not established any contract. To my mind it would be of the worst possible example to hold that agreements such as this resulted in balfou obligations which could be enforced in the Courts.
It held that there is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create a legally enforceable agreement when the agreement is domestic in nature.
Balfour v Balfour | Case Brief Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia
To my mind baltour party contemplated such a result. 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 consideration in form within the definition that I have mentioned.
This intention is to be determined objectively Smith v. Balfour balfoue for a binding contract. For these reasons I think the judgment of the Court below was wrong and that this appeal should be allowed.