Question

What was Balfour vs Balfour (1919)?

Answer 1

Balfour v Balfour (1919) is a well-known English contract law case that established the principle of domestic agreements and the presumption against creating legally enforceable agreements between spouses. The case involved a husband and wife, Mr. and Mrs. Balfour. In this case, the Balfours were living in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Mrs. Balfour had to remain there due to medical reasons while Mr. Balfour had to return to England. Before Mr. Balfour left, they agreed that he would pay Mrs. Balfour a monthly allowance of £30 as support while they were apart. However, their relationship subsequently deteriorated, and they eventually separated. Mrs. Balfour brought a legal action seeking enforcement of the agreement and claimed that Mr. Balfour had failed to fulfill his promise to provide her with financial support. However, the court ruled against her and held that there was no enforceable contract between the parties. The court distinguished between domestic agreements, which are generally presumed not to have legal intent, and commercial agreements, which are presumed to be legally binding. The court emphasized that the agreement between the Balfours was a domestic arrangement made between a husband and wife in the context of their personal relationship. It was not intended to create legal obligations and was merely a social agreement. The judgment in Balfour v Balfour established the concept of "presumption of domestic agreements," which holds that spouses do not typically intend to enter into legally binding contracts with each other for arrangements of a domestic or social nature. This presumption recognizes the importance of personal relationships and the freedom of individuals to make informal arrangements within their family or household without the intervention of the law. t's important to note that Balfour v Balfour applies specifically to domestic or social agreements between spouses and does not apply to commercial or business agreements. The case reflects the principle that not all agreements between parties are enforceable as contracts, especially when they arise in the context of personal relationships.