## Facts

- Mr. and Mrs. Balfour married in 1900 and lived together in Ceylon, where Mr. Balfour worked in government service.
- In 1915, they traveled to England on Mr. Balfour’s leave.
- When Mr. Balfour’s leave ended in 1916, he planned to return to Ceylon; Mrs. Balfour was advised to remain in England due to rheumatic arthritis.
- Before departing on 8 August 1916, Mr. Balfour stated he would pay Mrs. Balfour £30 per month “until she could rejoin him” and provided a cheque for the remainder of August.
- The relationship later deteriorated; Mr. Balfour proposed a permanent separation.
- Mrs. Balfour obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and an alimony order in 1918, then sued to recover alleged arrears of the £30 monthly payments as a contractual debt.

## Issues

1. Whether the husband’s promise to pay £30 per month to his wife during a temporary separation created a legally enforceable contract.
2. Whether spouses, while living in amity and making ordinary domestic arrangements, objectively intend such promises to create legal relations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the husband’s appeal and reversed the trial court.
- The court held there was no enforceable contract because the arrangement was a domestic understanding without an intention to create legal relations.
- The wife could not recover the claimed arrears on a contractual basis.

## Legal Principles

- A contract requires an objective intention that the promise will have legal consequences; offer, acceptance, and apparent consideration are not sufficient if that intention is absent.
- Agreements made between spouses in the ordinary course of a subsisting marriage are presumed not to be intended as legally binding; the presumption can be rebutted only by clear evidence of contrary intent.
- Domestic and social arrangements are generally treated differently from commercial bargains because they are commonly made without contemplation of legal enforcement.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that a husband’s promise to pay a monthly allowance to his wife while they were temporarily living apart, made during an amicable marriage, was a non-contractual domestic arrangement because the parties did not intend it to be legally enforceable.


Balfour v. Balfour, [1919] 2 K.B. 571 (C.A.)