Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Facts

• Mr. Balfour, a civil servant stationed in Ceylon, returned to England with his wife for a vacation.
• Mrs. Balfour was required to remain in England due to health issues, while Mr. Balfour returned to Ceylon.
• Before departing, Mr. Balfour promised to pay his wife £30 per month as maintenance.
• The relationship subsequently deteriorated, and Mr. Balfour ceased the maintenance payments.
• Mrs. Balfour sued to enforce the maintenance promise as a legally binding contract.
• The case reached the Court of Appeal, where the central question was whether the agreement between the spouses constituted an enforceable contract.

Issues

1. Whether an agreement between a husband and wife, specifically the promise of maintenance payments, constitutes a legally binding contract.
2. Whether there was a sufficient intention to create legal relations in the context of a domestic arrangement.
3. Whether the presence or absence of consideration affected the enforceability of the agreement.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that no binding contract existed between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour.
• The judgment emphasized the lack of intention to create legal relations in domestic agreements, even where consideration and formal offer and acceptance could be identified.
• Atkin LJ and Warrington LJ reasoned that agreements of this kind are not intended to be legally binding, especially where they are underpinned by natural love and affection.
• The burden was on Mrs. Balfour to prove the existence of a contract, which she failed to do.
• The court dismissed the appeal, establishing a presumption against contractual intent in domestic arrangements.

Legal Principles

• For a contract to be enforceable, parties must intend to create legal relations; in domestic or social contexts, this intention is generally presumed absent.
• Not all agreements between spouses or within families are contracts, as courts avoid regulating arrangements based on love and affection.
• The presumption against contractual intent in domestic settings can be rebutted by clear evidence to the contrary, particularly in cases where formality or significant consequences are involved (as demonstrated in later cases such as Merritt v Merritt and Parker v Clarke).
• Consideration remains a necessary element of contract formation, but in domestic contexts, its presence alone may not suffice for enforceability.
• Courts distinguish between domestic/social and commercial agreements; the latter usually carry a presumption of contractual intent.
• Agreements must also be sufficiently clear and certain to be legally enforced.

Conclusion

Balfour v Balfour established the key contract law principle that domestic agreements generally lack the intention to create legal relations, and are thus unenforceable at law unless clear evidence indicates otherwise. The case forms a foundational distinction between social/domestic and commercial arrangements in English contract law.