Introduction

• This is the first case which defined intention of creating legal relationship theory in law and the contract raised between the husband and wife is a kind of domestic contract and not enforceable under the law.

Facts

• In this case Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour went for a vacation and his wife became ill and needed medical treatment.
  • They made an agreement that Mrs. Balfour would stay in England and Mr. Balfour would stay in Ceylon and would pay $30 to Mrs. Balfour.
• This understanding was made while their relationship was fine. However, the relationship later soured, and the husband stopped making the payments.
• Later the husband and wife got separated and the wife brought this suit to enforce the contract between them.

Issues Involved

• Whether Mr. Balfour ever intended to enter into any sort of agreement with his wife, Mrs. Balfour?
• Whether the agreement between Mr. And Mrs. Balfour is valid in nature at all?
• Whether the contract between husband and wife enforceable in court of law?

Observation

• The Court said the contract between husband and wife are domestic contracts and cannot be enforced under the law.
• In the present case there was no intention of creating a legal relationship between husband and wife and husband is not legally bound to pay.
• It was noted that if courts were to allow wives when the contract is broken between a husband and a wife, then courts would be engaged with frivolous cases.
• This case is basically based on social agreements which are not enforceable under the law.

Note

The agreements made in personal family relationships are not counted in the law of contract, the agreements made between spouses to provide capital or monetary benefits do not hold any legally binding authority. Generally, spouses or parties to marriage do make arrangements for personal and household expenses, but there is never a legal instinct in those things.