Scribd
Upload
705 views

Balfour V Balfour

The husband promised to pay his wife £30 per month while they lived apart in Ceylon and England. The wife sued to enforce this promise. Generally, agreements between spouses are not considered contracts because the parties do not intend legal consequences. However, the facts here showed the husband explicitly promised payment while parting ways. The court still found this was not an enforceable contract, arguing that treating financial promises between spouses as contracts could overwhelm the courts.

Uploaded by

vijay chittiboyina
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
705 views

Balfour V Balfour

The husband promised to pay his wife £30 per month while they lived apart in Ceylon and England. The wife sued to enforce this promise. Generally, agreements between spouses are not considered contracts because the parties do not intend legal consequences. However, the facts here showed the husband explicitly promised payment while parting ways. The court still found this was not an enforceable contract, arguing that treating financial promises between spouses as contracts could overwhelm the courts.

Uploaded by

vijay chittiboyina
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Balfour v.

Balfour
Brief Fact Summary. A husband promised to pay his wife a £30 per month
allowance.  The wife sued her husband to enforce the promise.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Agreements between husband and wife to provide


monies are generally not contracts because generally the “parties d[o] not intend that
they should be attended by legal consequences.”

Facts. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were a married couple.  The Defendant
husband and the Plaintiff wife lived in Ceylon where the Defendant worked.  In 1915,
while the Defendant was on leave, the couple returned to England.  When it was
time to return to Ceylon, the Plaintiff was advised not to return because of her
health.  Prior to the Defendant returning, he promised to send the Plaintiff £30 per
month as support.  The parties’ relationship deteriorated and the parties began living
apart.  The Plaintiff brings suit to enforce the Defendant’s promise to pay her £30 per
month.  The lower court found the parties’ agreement constituted a contract.

Issue. Does the husbands promise to pay £30 per month constitute a valid contract
which can be sued upon?

Held. The court first recognized that certain forms of agreements do not reach the
status of a contract.  An agreement between a husband and wife is often times such
a form of agreement.  In such agreements, one party is give a certain sum of money
on a daily, weekly, monthly, etc.. basis.  This agreement is sometimes termed an
allowance.  However, these agreements are not contracts because the “parties did
not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences.”  One reason the
court is hesitant to treat these agreements as contracts, is that there would not be
enough courts to handle the volume of cases.  Thus, here, the husband’s promise
did not rise to the level of a contract.

Discussion. The court makes an interesting argument in not enforcing these types


of promises.  The court argues that if these promises are treated as contracts the
flood gates will open.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy