Balfour v. Balfour
(1919) 2 KB 571
MAIN ISSUE
While coming back from London to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) he made the promise to her wife that he would send 30 pounds every month to her until she became fit and returned back to Ceylon. Now the main issue was whether the promise made by him should be considered as a valid contract as there was the consideration of 30 pounds or to look into the fact that Mrs. Balfour had not made any bargain and directly accept whatever was promised by Mr. Balfour. Hence the main question in front of the judges was to look on both the aspects of cases and to decide whether it would be a valid contract or mere husband – wife relation promise.
The court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no enforceable agreement although the depth of their reasoning differs.
Warrington LJ said that if we will consider this as a contract then the promises which the wife made to her husband would be enforceable under law. He said that there was no contract as the both the persons were not intended to bargain which is enforceable in law. He added that husband made the promise to pay her 30 pounds and was bound to pay her as long as he can but Mrs. Balfour did not make any bargain and hence it was sufficient as per his knowledge to dispose of the case.
Duke LJ laid down the stress on the point that they had not yet been divorced, and that the promise made between them was as similar to the promises made between husband and wife. He said that it was impossible to admit that the promise between husband and wife are always of contractual nature. In order to made the contract there should be something more than the mere promises having regard to the domestic relations of the parties. He said “The proposition that the mutual promises made in the ordinary domestic relationship of husband and wife of necessity give cause for action on a contract seems to me to go to the very root of the relationship, and to be a possible fruitful source of dissension and quarrelling. 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. I think, therefore, that in point of principle there is no foundation for the claim which is made here, and I am satisfied that there was no consideration.”
Lord Justice Atkin took a different view he laid emphasis on the point that there was “no intention to effect legal relations”. He said that mere promise between husband and wife can be consider as an agreement but not a contract. It was similar to that the two persons agreed to go on the walk or where there is the offer and acceptance of hospitality. He also came to the conclusion that there was no binding contract between the parties.
