[Type here]

FIRST INTERNALS OF LEGAL

1
[Type here]

IRAC
ANALYSIS
CASE NAME- BALFOUR V. BALFOUR (1919)
2KB 571

FACTS

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 is a leading English contract law case. It held that there is
a rebuttal presumption against an intention to create a legally enforceable agreement when the
agreement is domestic in nature.

It was a case of 1919. Mr. Balfour is an English man who was working as a civil engineer
and also as the director of irrigation in Ceylon (then) and Sri Lanka (now).

1
Mr. Balfour (the defendant) used to live with his wife Mrs. Balfour(plaintiff). One day in
1915 they decided to visit back to England. When they reached England and stayed there for
some times, Mrs. Balfour developed a disease named rheumatoid arthritis which is a joint
disease, therefore she decided that she will not return to Ceylon with her husband and stay in
England only because her doctor advised her not to travel and as the climate of Ceylon is also
not suitable for her joint disease.

Due to this both husband and wife decided that only Mr. Balfour will alone return to Ceylon
leaving Mrs. Balfour back in England and orally promised that he will send 30 pounds a
month for Mrs. Balfour back in England until she returns back to him to Ceylon.

When they decided that Mr. Balfour will send money from Ceylon and Mrs. Balfour will use
that as her maintenance in England, at that time their relationship was in good terms but
gradually their relationship deteriorated and Mr. Balfour refused to send the money of 30
pounds to his wife.

2
Mr. Balfour wrote back and said it is better to “remain apart” and not even sent the money
to Mrs. Balfour, later they separated legally.

Then in 1918 march the plaintiff, knocked the doors of the court and sued her husband
(defendant)to give her 30 pounds a month. In July she got the ‘decree nisi’ which means the
show cause to get apart, then in December she got an order for alimony.

2
1.Balfour V Balfour,[1919] 2KB571
2.Associate Zarmeen Jahan, Balfour V. Balfour Case Brief, Indian contract Act [6][oct-18,2019]
[Type here]

ISSUES

The issue here is,

1. Whether Mr. Balfour ever intended to enter into any contract with his wife Mrs. Balfour?

2.Whether Mr. Balfour is obligated to send the money of 30 pounds every month and also the
alimony she claimed as they decided to stay apart from each other, to Mrs. Balfour or not to
give alimony and maintenance to Mrs. Balfour?

3.Does this issues (a mere oral agreement) between husband and wife can go to court or are
they enforceable by the rule of law?

4.whether the intention between both the parties is enough to convert an agreement a valid
contract?

5.Under which terms and circumstances a judge can fail to impose an agreement between
husband and wife.

6.Whether the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour valid at the first place?

RULES

1. The social as well as domestic agreements such as the oral conversation or casual
agreements between husband and wife, between parents and children, between members of
family or close friends, which lacks the intend to enter into a contract then that can not be
termed as a lawfully enforced contract in any way.

2.According to basic principles of contract, 3 an agreement without an intention to create legal

3. Consideration is a major component of a contract, it is either a performance or non-

3
3.DINSHAH FARDUTI MULLA, MULLA’S Indian Contract Act; Lexis Nexis, 2015
[Type here]

4.A legally wedded couple when seek a divorce, there is a divorce term for the duration of a
divorce, the couple has to go with that term to get the divorce from each other. If there is any
source available for the expenses and maintenance of the wife then the husband is not entitled
to send maintenance to the wife. And even if there is no source of income present with the
wife then the husband is only entitled to send the necessities not the extra unlimited expense
of the wife.

Analysis

4
When Mrs. Balfour first sue in the lower court against her husband seeking 30 pounds of
money every month and an alimony against their separation, at that time Justice Sargent, the
judge on the bench of king’s division announced the results in the for of the plaintiff Mrs.
Balfour. He asked the husband to pay the money he promised to the wife and said that the
husband is entitled to support the wife.

Dissatisfied by the decision by the court, Mr. Balfour again filed an appeal in the Civil
Division, which later resulted in the change in the decision of the lower court and made this a
landmark case in the history of contracts.

According to Mr. Balfour the agreement between him and his wife is completely a domestic
agreement which is done casually without any intention to enter into a legal contract. Mr.
Balfour argued that he never intentionally wanted a legally enforceable contract and that
agreement is very domestic in nature which lacks intention, and he is not obligated to pay
Mrs. Balfour 30 pounds every month.

Secondly, as the agreement itself is a domestic and a casual oral conversation between
husband and wife, therefore it can not meet the requirements of the contract law and will fail
to move to the court of law. These, kind of domestic agreements are legally unenforceable in
the eyes of law.

And if we only focus on the agreement itself, then it is actually a temporary agreement where
Mr. Balfour said to support his wife financially by sending 30 pounds every month till she
again returns back to Ceylon. Intention of getting into the contract is absent here, even if it is
Mr. Balfour who said to send 30 pounds to his wife every

4
4.Aishwarya Sandeep, Case Analysis Balfour V Balfour 7th mar. 2022[https://Aishwarya Sandeep.com]
[Type here]

month, still both the parties never intended to take this to the court of law and intended to
sue, if the contract is breached in any point of time.

Consideration the major component in the entire process of contract was also absent in this
case. The literal meaning of consideration is the exchange of “something of value” to both
the parties. Here the consideration flowed from Mr. Balfour to Mrs. Balfour (the 30 pounds
of money every month) but there was no consideration from Mrs. Balfour’s side. As the
consideration was absent, the entire contract will become invalid in the eyes of law.

This said agreement was done when the couple were at in good terms with each other, after
that the relationship between them soured, then after that they agreed to make the existing
separation permanent, after which Mrs. Balfour demanded an alimony for her maintenance.
This agreement has no relation with the permanent separation and nowhere in the agreement,
Mr. Balfour mentioned about it and therefore Mr. Balfour is not entitled to pay the money to
Mrs. Balfour.

Conclusion

The domestic and casual agreements done inside the family, between the family members or
close relationships, without the intend to enter into a 5 legal contract and take the issue to the
court of law (if breached) in future will never be considered as a legal contract. This case of
“Balfour vs. Balfour” (1919) included and cleared that the sole element of ‘the intend of
entering into the contract’ is necessary in a contract.

The intention plays a vital role in enforcing the legal relationship between two parties. Both
the parties should agree with the intension to enter into the contract. If the intention from one
party is absent, in that case too, we cannot say that particular contract as a valid one. Here the
intention from Mr. Balfour is absent and hence this agreement is a not a valid contract.

The consideration should be there from both the sides between the two parties. Consideration
is an important requirement in a valid contract, without it, a contract can’t exist. Here the
flow of consideration from Mrs. Balfour to Mr. Balfour is absent, therefore this agreement is
not a contract in the eyes of law.

5
5. Indian Contract Act, 1872,§ ,no. 09, Act of Parliament, 1872(India)
[Type here]

The agreement made by both the parties (when they were living happily) is a separate one. It
has no relation with the permanent separation and the money of maintenance, claimed by
Mrs. Balfour after that. As the particular agreement is independent and a temporary one, and
has nothing to do with the permanent separation. Therefore, that agreement will stay invalid
in this issue.

As the elements which are required for a valid contract to exist, are not present in this case.
Therefore, no valid contract exists between the parties in this case. So, Mr. Balfour is not
entitled to provide any money or maintenance to Mrs. Balfour.

In the later judgement where Mr. Balfour appealed to the court of law, the three judge bench,
which included Lord Justice Atkin, Lord Justice Duke and Lord Justice Warrington stated
that the case was a casual domestic agreement between a husband and wife where the intend
to enter into the contract was absent, the intension to bind in a legal agreement bound by law
was absent, the consideration to enter into the contract is absent. Therefore, that agreement
failed to become a contract. The entire Judgment done by the previous court turned and this
time the judgement was done in Mr. Balfour’s side.

6
[Type here]