Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Balfour v Balfour is a seminal case for law students, pivotal in understanding the enforceability of domestic agreements within contract law. The case addresses the legal bindings of agreements made between spouses, setting a precedent on the intention to create legal relations in informal settings.
Facts
C and D were married in 1900. D worked as the Director of Irrigation in Ceylon (modern day Sri Lanka). In 1915, D and his wife C returned to England during D’s leave, but C developed arthritis and was advised to remain in England. On 8th August 1916, D gave C a cheque and orally promised to give C £30 a month until she could return to Ceylon. C and D drifted apart while they were separated. In March 1918, C sued D to keep up with the monthly payments. At first instance, the judge held that D was under an obligation to support C, and they had contracted that the extent of that obligation was defined as the monthly payments. C’s consent to that arrangement was sufficient consideration to constitute a contract.
Legal Issue
Was there a legally binding agreement between C and D that obligated monthly payments even after the relationship fell apart?
Held
The Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal and rejected the contractual claim. The allowance was arranged while the spouses were living together amicably, although illness required them to live in different countries. It was part of their domestic arrangements rather than a bargain intended to be enforceable in court.
Atkin LJ explained that ordinary family arrangements may involve promises or exchanges without carrying an intention to create legal relations. The parties' later separation did not retrospectively change the character of their earlier understanding. Other judgments also addressed the absence of a contractual bargain. The decision did not establish that marriage prevents spouses making contracts: the context in which this particular promise was made was decisive.
⭐ Legal Principle
An ordinary domestic arrangement between spouses living amicably is generally presumed not to create contractual obligations. The presumption can be displaced by objective evidence of legal intention. Intention is assessed when the agreement is made, rather than inferred solely from a later breakdown of the relationship.
Significance
Balfour is a starting point for intention to create legal relations, rather than a rule that promises between relatives are unenforceable. It contrasts with arrangements negotiated between separated spouses, as in Merritt v Merritt, where the circumstances supported legal intention. Jones v Padavatton applies similar reasoning to a parent and adult child. In an exam, identify the relationship and the purpose, formality and circumstances of the particular agreement before drawing a conclusion from its domestic setting.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did the later marital breakdown not make the allowance enforceable?
The court assessed the promise when it was made. At that point the allowance formed part of an amicable domestic arrangement during a medically necessary separation. Later conflict did not retrospectively turn that understanding into a contractual bargain. Mrs Balfour still needed evidence of legal intention at formation.
Does Balfour mean spouses cannot enter binding contracts?
No. Its reasoning concerns ordinary domestic arrangements, not incapacity to contract. Spouses may objectively intend enforceable obligations, particularly when negotiating financial arrangements after separation. A written agreement and circumstances showing a deliberate settlement may rebut the domestic presumption. The facts of Merritt provide the conventional comparison.
How should intention and consideration be separated in analysing Balfour?
Consideration concerns the exchange supporting a promise; intention asks whether the arrangement was meant to carry legal consequences. They are separate requirements. Atkin LJ's reasoning explains why a domestic exchange can fail for lack of legal intention even where comparable promises between commercial parties might constitute consideration.