Scribd
Upload
2 views

Case Study Contract Act

Christ uni bcom 1st year notes for business law

Uploaded by

5yyp85q2ty
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views

Case Study Contract Act

Christ uni bcom 1st year notes for business law

Uploaded by

5yyp85q2ty
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Balfour V.

Balfour

Facts:
1. The couple mentioned in the case study were living in Ceylon, the old name of Srilanka, and left for
England.
2. The wife had developed ill health in England due to which she decided to stay there however the
Husband had to leave for Ceylon.
3. During his absence, he promised his wife to give 30 pounds a month as maintenance to help her live in
England.
4. For the initial months, the Husband gave money to the wife until differences started to arise between
the couple, because of which he stopped giving her 30 pounds.
5. The wife decided to take action against the husband to recover the money the husband hadn’t paid her
as promised.
6. The issue is if arrangements agreed between spouses constitute a contract.Thus,Mrs Balfour brought
this to court for her husband’s default to pay.

Contentions:
1. The wife contended that there was pre pre-decided agreement between her and Husband.
2. She contended to rightfully claim the money as promised by the Husband to her which hadn’t been paid
overtime.

Judgement of the Court:


1. The Court held that DOMESTIC AGREEMENTS are NOT Contracts.
2. The time this agreement was made, there wasn’t any Legal Intention behind the agreement.
3. Since the two parties did not have any Legal Intention to file a suit when the Agreement was made, the
Husband isn’t liable to pay the money to his wife which he stopped paying.

Provisions of the Law:


1. Domestic Agreements are Not Enforceable in a Court of Law.
2. The court does not interfere between spouses in their day to day affairs and problems.

LALMAN SHUKLA VS. GAURI DUTT

FACTS: Gauri Dutt sent his servant Lalman to trace his missing son.He then announced that anybody
who traced his nephew would be entitled to a certain reward.Lalman,traced the boy in ignorance of this
announcement.Subsequently when he came to know of the reward,he claimed it. Held,he was not entitled
to the reward.

PROVISIONS AND REASONS:


• Offer must be communicated to the offeree.
• Unless an offer is communicated ,there can be no acceptance by it. An acceptance by offer,in ignorance
of the offer,is not acceptance and does not confer any right on the acceptor.

CONTENTIONS:
• It was contended by the petitioner that the mere performance of the act was sufficient to be deserving of
the reward attached to such performance.
• As it was immaterial whether the person performing the act had the knowledge of the reward associated
with or not.

JUDGEMENT:
• The court held that the basic necessity is the knowledge and assent of the person.
• It was laid down that the plaintiff was just fulfilling his obligations while he was tracing Dutt’s son.

Prepared and compiled by


Vishal Soni
PCS LLB BCOM

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