Balfour v. Balfour 1919 (Case Summary)

This landmark case in contract law established the principle that domestic agreements between spouses are presumed not to have legal enforceability, unless clear evidence of intent to create legal relations is shown.

Facts of Balfour v Balfour

1. Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour were a married couple who lived together in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).
2. Mr. Balfour returned to England for work and Mrs. Balfour stayed behind due to medical reasons.
3. Before leaving, Mr. Balfour promised to pay Mrs. Balfour £30 per month as maintenance.
4. Their relationship later deteriorated, and Mr. Balfour stopped making the payments of maintenance. 
5. Mrs. Balfour sued her husband, claiming that the maintenance agreement was a legally binding contract.

Issues framed

1. Whether the agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour constitutes a binding contract?
2. Whether there was an intention to create legal relations in the agreement?

Judgment of Balfour v Balfour

The Court of Appeal applied principles of contract law, particularly the necessity of an intention to create legal relations for enforceability.

The Court of Appeal held that agreements between spouses, particularly those made in the context of an ongoing domestic relationship, are presumed not to have legal intent. It was determined that the agreement was a domestic arrangement, typical of marital relationships, and lacked the intention to create legal obligations.

The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mr. Balfour, holding that the agreement was not enforceable. Justice Atkin stated: “Agreements such as these are not contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended to by legal consequences.”