FACTS OF THE CASE
Mr. Statesman worked for the Govt. in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka)
Mrs. Statesman was living with him. Within the year 1915, they each came back to the European nation. Balfour’s leave.
In 1916 Mr. Statesman went back to Ceylon leaving Mrs. Statesman in a European nation wherever she had to stay quickly below medical recommendation.
Before returning he united to send his adult female a total of £30 for her maintenance till he came back.
For a few months, he sent her the number however later as there arose variations between them he stopped paying her the number.
The adult female brought associate action against her husband to recover the number.
- Was Mr. Balfour’s provide supposed to be wrongfully binding?
- will the very fact that they each were husband and adult female matter?
DECISION OF THE COURT
The Court controls that each of the parties needs to intend that associate agreement ought to be wrongfully binding to become enforceable.
The court won’t interfere between the spouses in their day-to-day affairs.
Since the parties didn’t have any intention therefore the agreement was strictly a domestic agreement.
To enforce any agreement as a contract some essential components are:
- Legal intention to create a contact
Agreements like these are outside the realm of contract and are thought to be solely domestic.
At first Sergeant, J controlled that man. Balfour’s consent was ample thought to render the contract enforceable however within the appeals court it was controlled by the bench of Warrington LJ, Duke LJ, and Duke LJ that it was not an enforceable contract.
The Court was of the read that mutual guarantees created within the context of a standard domestic relationship between husband and adult female don’t sometimes create a wrongfully binding contract as a result of there’s no intention that they are wrongfully binding.
However, the Court did confer that there could also be circumstances during which a wrongfully binding agreement between a husband and adult female could arise.
The case is usually cited in conjunction with Merritt vs Merritt (1970). Here the court distinguished the case from Balfour vs Balfour.
Mr. and Mrs. Merritt, although still married, was an associate alienated couple at the time the agreement was created.
Therefore associate agreement between them was created to form legal relations.
The agreement between the Balfours wasn’t a wrongfully enforceable contract however just a standard domestic arrangement. There was no intention to form legal relations and Mrs. Statesman couldn’t sue for the breach of it.
The decision of the court is additionally correct as a result of the agreement that supported their mutual trust and love.
Agreements created out of mutual love and trust don’t seem to be wrongfully binding and any argument during this agreement is going to be thought of as a family matter and not below the ambit of the law.