CASE ANALYSIS
BALFOUR VS BALFOUR- INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872
INTRODUCTION: -
It is a renowned English contract law case that held at three rebuttals there is a presumption against the intention to create a legally enforceable agreement when the agreement is domestic in nature. Mr. Balfour is the appellant, and Mrs. Balfour is the respondent/plaintiff it was filed in the year 1919 in The English and Welsh Court of Appeal. Atkin, Warrington, and Duke LJJ were the judges. The United Kingdom is the country.
BACKGROUND/FACTS OF THE CASE: -
Ø In this case there was a very beautiful couple that is Mr. and Mrs. Balfour they resided in Sri Lanka to be specific in Ceylon.
Ø Mr. Balfour used to work in Sri Lanka, and he got certain vacation time, so they planned to go to England during that vacation time so Mr. and Mrs. Balfour travel to England for their holidays when they were enjoying their vacation suddenly Mrs. Balfour fell sick.
Ø Mr. Balfour took her to the hospital when she was taken to the hospital, she was diagnosed with a disease called arthritis, so she had arthritis and she fell sick.
Ø The doctor suggested to Mrs. Balfour that she cannot travel because the weather conditions in Sri Lanka will not suit her health conditions, so the doctor suggested she stay back and take treatment in England itself for some more days both the couple agreed.
Ø Mr. Balfour decided that he will travel back to Sri Lanka because he had to work there. Mrs. Balfour agreed to stay back in England and continue the treatment.
Ø Mr. Balfour was about to leave for Sri Lanka when he promised Mrs. Balfour her monthly expenses, he will send her 30 pounds every month from Sri Lanka to take care of her monthly expenses and maintenance and they had a promise or oral agreement as promised Mr. Balfour sent for every month 30 pounds this went on for couple of months say 5 to six months he paid it on time he used to send the money order all time.
Ø Every month Mrs. Balfour received money but all of a sudden after the 7th or 8th month she stopped receiving the money order she waited for one more month because she felt there might be some technical issue even the second month, she didn’t get any money order and this continued.
Ø Mrs. Balfour asked Mr. Balfour that why he had not been sending money and Mr. Balfour responded that he will not send money anymore.
Ø Mrs. Balfour filed a case on Mr. Belfour saying, “this person promised me to pay 30 pounds every month, but he failed to do as promised now”. The judge was in confusion about what to do in this case what do I have to order in case after giving thought the judge finally decided.
Ø The husband agreed to send to his wife and agreed sum of 30 Pounds per month as her maintenance expenses. For a few months, he sent the amount, but later differences arose between them, and he stopped paying the amount of maintenance.
Ø The wife brought an action against her husband to recover the amount of arrears.
Ø As Mr. Balfour’s boat was about to set sail, he promised her £30 a month until she came back to Ceylon.
Ø They drifted apart, and Mr. Balfour wrote saying it was better that they remain apart. In March 1918, Mrs. Balfour sued him to keep up with the monthly £30 payments. In July she got a decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimony.
ISSUES OF THE CASE: -
1. Was Mr. Balfour's offer intended to be legally binding?
2. does the fact that they were husband and wife matter?
ARGUMENT: -
Mrs. Balfour filed a case on Mr. Belfour saying this person promised me to pay 30 pounds every month, but he failed to do as promised the wife contended that there has been an agreement between her and her husband. And that she has a right to claim the number of maintenance expenses as agreed by her husband
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS: -
The court held that domestic agreements are not contracts. At the time of making these agreements, there is no intention to create legal relations Because the parties did not have any intention to file a suit therefore the Husband is not required to pay the amount of maintenance. the lower court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and held that the defendant’s promise to send money was enforceable. The court held that Mr. Balfour’s consent was sufficient consideration to render the contract enforceable and the defendant appealed. The court said that: It is essential that both the parties should intend that an agreement be a legally binding way to become enforceable. The courts will not interfere between the spouses in their day-to-day affairs. Mr. Balfour won the case. Mr. Balfour as per this promise had no intention of entering a legal contract it was just a promise, so Mrs. Balfour lost this case on the ground of domestic and social agreements, and it is not enforceable under law.
CONCLUSION: -
In our daily lives, husbands Say a hundred things to wives like I’ll build you a Taj Mahal, I will give you a platinum ring. will the husbands do all these things in their life? there will be hundreds of promises your parents also do it for you in return you will also give them hundreds of promises. now if a husband does not build the Taj Mahal if your father or mother does not give you a bike on the next birthday can you file a case in court was the question?
The above case signifies how a social contract cannot be enforced by law. These agreements are of social nature, and it is significant to note here that for a contract to be enforceable there must be an intention of the legal relationship between the parties and not just a mere social relation. Whether a promise is made or not, it is up to the parties to keep it to the best of their abilities. The parties cannot enforce, and the judges who made the decision concluded that the court cannot intervene in marital affairs and that it is up to the parties to solve their own problems. As a result, the Balfour law provided a new perspective on contract validation.
