Balfour v Balfour (1918-19) ALL ER 860 (C.A.) | Domestic agreements b/w husband and wife are not legally binding unless explicitly stated

By

Balfour vs Balfour

Balfour v Balfour (1918-19) ALL ER 860 (C.A.)

Part 1 Case facts in brief 

  1. Mr Balfour made an oral promise to his wife Mrs Balfour to pay a monthly allowance of £30 to sustain herself until he returned from Ceylon (Sri Lanka) back to England
  2. Over time they drifted apart
  3. Mrs Balfour sued him in March 1918 to enforce continued payment of £30 payments contending that there in fact exists a legal agreement between her and her husband

Part 2 Legal aspects of the case

 

Legal consideration 
Does a legally binding contract arise between the said parties for an agreement which domestic in nature? In other words, did the parties intend to create a legal obligation on each-other for promises entered in a domestic relationship (husband and wife, Mrs and Mr balfour)?

Abjudication (judgement)

In the first instance, Judge Charles Sargant held the verdict that Mr Balfour was obliged to support his wife.
However, Court of Appeal unanimously held and overruled that there was no enforceable agreement.

Reasoning
- Rebuttable presumption against an intention to create a legally binding agreement when an agreement is domestic in nature
- Presumed that there is no intent to create a legal contract and repercussions on agreements between husband and wife. Parties had not yet been divorced, and the promise had been made still whilst as husband and wife.
- husband and wife were not estranged at the time of creating this agreement to imply that they wanted the agreement to be legally enforceable

What is a rebuttable presumption?
A fact assumed to be true unless repudiated by presenting evidence contrary to it
Onus of proving that a legal intention to enforce it at the time of such an agreement existed on Mrs Balfour she did not rebut this presumption.

Key takeaway:
Agreements of a social/domestic nature are presumed to not be entered into to create a legally enforceable agreement unless proved that there in fact was an intention to enter into a legal agreement
For eg: in Merritt vs Meritt - the estranged husband and wife


Cases where the intention matters
Domestic / Family agreements where it is presumed binding legal intention does not exist
1. Agreements between husband and wife
2. Agreement between parent and child
3. Agreement between siblings

Commercial agreements where it is presumed a binding legal intention does exist
Esso Petroleum v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Malaysia Mining Corporation (1989) (Comfort letter exception)
[Source: Lawoctopus]

What is the test to check if there was an intention to create legal relations?
The test as to whether or not there is legal intent is whether a reasonable person would regard the agreement as intended to be legally binding. The circumstances surrounding any negotiations and any alleged contract will be taken into account. (Source: Claims.co.uk)

Disclaimer: The posts are meant for educational and learning purposes for anyone interested in learning and discussing law. Parts or sections of this post are taken from Wikipedia / law-related websites/case briefs etc. with attempts to source the website. Emphasis is on making sure the more important parts of the case and legal implications are presented accordingly