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):||6 February 2017|
|PDF File Size:||16.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.43 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. The terms may be repudiated, varied or renewed as performance proceeds bwlfour as disagreements develop, and the principles of the common law as to exoneration and discharge and accord and satisfaction are such as find no place in the domestic code.
Email required Address never made public. Contents [ show ]. The defence to this action on the alleged contract is that the defendant, the husband, entered into no contract with his wife, and for the determination of that it is necessary to remember that there are agreements between parties which do not result in contracts within the meaning of that term in our law.
It is impossible to say that where the relationship of husband and wife exists, and promises are balffour, they must be deemed to be promises of a contractual nature. Inthey both came back to England during Mr Balfour’s leave.
The lower court found that there was sufficient consideration in the consent of Mrs. 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.
That is a well-known definition, and it constantly happens, I bxlfour, 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. At first instance, Sargant J held that Mr Balfour was under an obligation to support his wife.
Retrieved from ” https: Jones v Padavatton . All I can say bwlfour that the small Courts of this country would have to be multiplied one hundredfold if these arrangements were held to result in legal obligations. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Promises in spousal or for that matter, family roles ,b legally binding.
He consequently promised orally to make her an allowance per month until she rejoined him.
Balfour v Balfour
You are commenting using your WordPress. Her doctor advised her to stay in England, because the Ceylon climate would be detrimental to her health. Notify me of new comments via email. Atkin holds that if the courts were to allow all wives to come to court when agreements had been broken with their husbands then balgour courts would be overrun with frivolous cases. A husband was employed in Ceylon.
For the reasons given by my brethren it appears to me to be plainly established that the promise here was not intended by either party to be attended by legal consequences. Warrington LJ delivered blfour opinion first, the core part being this passage. He placed weight on the fact that the parties had bafour yet been divorced, and that the promise had been made still whilst as husband and wife. Parker v Clark  1 WLR If however, instead of doing so, she agrees to give up that right and to accept an allowance instead, she is entitled to sue for it.
Balfour v. Balfour  2 KB 571
Causes of action; Intention to create legal relations; Maintenance; Marriage; Oral contracts. He failed to make the payment and she sued him. Balfour and his wife went to England for a vacation, and his wife became ill and needed medical attention. As there was no intent to be legally bound when the agreement was agreed upon, there can be no legally binding contract. Nobody would suggest blafour ordinary circumstances that those balfoour 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.
I think that the letters do not evidence such a contract, or amplify the oral 1199 which was given by the wife, which is not in dispute. I think, therefore, that the appeal must be allowed.
Balfour v. Balfour  2 KB
These two people never intended to make a bargain which could be enforced in law. 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. The consideration that really obtains for them is that natural love and affection which counts for so little in these cold Courts.
Lord Justice Atkin  took a different approach, emphasising that there was no “intention to effect legal relations”. Balflur are commenting using your Twitter account.
Balfoour 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 balrour dissension and quarrelling. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Balfor in this case there was no separation agreement at all.
Balfour sufficient for a binding contract. It is required that the obligations arising out of that relationship shall be displaced before either of the parties can found a contract upon such promises.