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.

Author: Nikoshura Gunos
Country: Seychelles
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 25 February 2007
Pages: 142
PDF File Size: 16.11 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.87 Mb
ISBN: 273-6-53138-155-3
Downloads: 54412
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kataxe

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: The consideration that really obtains for them is that natural love and affection which counts for so little in these cold Courts. He placed weight on the fact that the parties had not yet been divorced, and that the promise had been made still whilst as husband and wife. Bills of Exchange Act s 3 1. Next Post Wood v.

Causes of action; Intention to create legal relations; Maintenance; Marriage; Oral contracts.

Duke LJpreviously a Conservative party politician, became the president of the divorce division from to In consideration that you will agree to give me 30l. That is in my opinion sufficient to dispose of the case. This understanding was made while their relationship was fine; however the relationship later soured.

Contract Law Casenote: Balfour v Balfour UK

Nevertheless they are not contracts, and they are not contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. In respect of balfoyr promises each house is a domain into which the King’s writ does not seek to run, and to which his officers do not seek to be admitted.


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. It held that there is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create a legally enforceable agreement when the agreement is domestic in nature.

Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Jones v Padavatton []. Retrieved from ” http: Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. 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 balfohr agreements between parties which do not result in contracts within the meaning of that term in our law.

They are not sued upon, not because the parties are reluctant to enforce their legal rights when the agreement is broken, but because the parties, in the inception of the arrangement, never intended that they should be sued upon.

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. Lord Justice Atkin [2] took a different approach, emphasising that there was no “intention to effect legal relations”. Then Duke LJ gave his.

That was why in Eastland v Burchell 3 QBDthe agreement for separation was found by the learned judge to have been of decisive consequence. This site uses cookies. These two people never intended to make a bargain which could be enforced in law. There must be intention of parties to create legal relations while entering into any agreement so as to make it enforceable by law. They drifted apart, and Mr Balfour wrote saying it was better that they remain apart.


The lower court found that there was sufficient consideration in the consent of Mrs. Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act s 2 1. Balfour v Balfour [] 2 KB I think the onus was upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not established any contract. Consideration-Intention to create legal relations. That is a well-known definition, and it constantly happens, I think, 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.

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 f 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 balfoyr possibilities of that kind. All I can say is that there is no such contract here.

Email required Address never made public. She did not rebut the presumption.