Critically analyze Balfour vs Balfour and

Merritt vs Merritt and give your opinion that what were the distinguishing factors between

Balfour v Balfour and Merritt v Merritt which created legal obligation in one case in comparison to other. Minimum 500 words.

Balfour vs. Balfour Facts of the Case

1. Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour were husband and wife from Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and once they went for a vacation to England.

2. But unfortunately during the course of vacation, Mrs. Balfour fell ill; she was in urgent need of medical attention.

3. Then they decided and made an agreement that Mr. Balfour would return to Ceylon and his wife (Mrs. Balfour) shall stay back until she recovers from her illness.

4. They had also decided that during that period of time Mr. Balfour shall pay Mrs.

Balfour 30 pounds as maintenance every unless she recovers and returns back to Ceylon.

5. Now this understanding and interpretation was made when their relationship was fine and there was not any sort of sourness between them.

6. But slowly and gradually their relationship deteriorated which resulted in non- payment of the amount of maintenance by Mr. Balfour to Mrs. Balfour.

7. Mr. Balfour wrote the letter to his wife suggesting to make their separation permanent and later on they separated legally and divorced.

8. But Mrs. Balfour decided to enforce the verbal agreement through the court.

9. Mrs. Balfour had brought the case against Mr. Balfour for non-payment of the amount he was supposed to pay in court of law.

Procedural History Of The Case

Initially when Mrs. Balfour had moved to the court in order to seek her maintenance, an additional judge of King's Bench division presided by Justice Sargant, held that the husband is indeed liable and is under obligation to provide maintenance and support to his wife. It had held that there existed a valid contract between Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour. Basically, the lower court ruled in favour of the plaintiff (Mrs. Balfour) and against the defendant (Mr. Balfour).The defendant's promise to pay the maintenance was enforceable.

The lower court held that the consideration of monthly transfer of money was lawful and binding obligations but Mr. Balfour appealed in higher court.

Contention at the Part of the Appellant (Mr.

Balfour)

The Agreement made between Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour was purely domestic in nature, it does not hold any legal

enforcement. Moreover Mr. Balfour never had any sort of intention to form an agreement which is legal in nature.

Contention At The Part Of The Respondent (Mrs. Balfour)

The husband must be obliged to pay her the maintenance because, because the husband got into the domestic agreement by entering into the verbal contract that he would pay her the amount of 30 pounds as support for which she had agreed to stay back in England.

What Was Held In Balfour Vs. Balfour (1919)

It was held that the characteristics of the agreement was purely and completely domestic in nature, Lord Justice Atkin held that when a husband and a wife enter into an agreement they never intend to create a legal relationship. Both the parties must have an intention to create a legal relationship while entering into an agreement, then only it becomes enforceable in court of law.

Moreover, a court will never take into account the domestic agreements between spouses made in daily course of life. The agreement was outside the realm of contracts altogether.

Judgement

As mentioned above, the agreement was not legally binding, the agreements made in personal family relationships are not counted in law of contract.

The agreements made between spouses to provide capitals 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.

The court of Appeal had unanimously ruled that there was no such enforceable agreement between Mr. Balfour and Mrs.

Balfour. Basically, the law revolves around the concept that there must be an intention on the part of both the parties to create a legal relationship in order to validate a contract.

This was the ratio decidendi of the case.

Whether the parties intended to create a legal relationship or not is determined by examining the circumstances that existed, under which the execution of the contract was done.

Analysis of the Case

Initially, at the first instance of the case, Justice Sargant had held that, the claims made by Mrs. Balfour are valid and Mr. Balfour should be entitled to pay her the maintenance which he promised to pay. Finally, Mr. Balfour appealed in the court of Appeal. In the court of Appeal, it was held by the bench of judges, Warrington LJ, Duke LJ, Atkin LJ that the agreement is not enforceable in court of law.

Atkin LJ observed it with regard to owing to its domestic nature.

It was said that the doctrine was with regard to public policy and domestic agreement has got nothing to do with it. The court cannot indulge into such trifle issues relating to personal and family agreements.

Though there may be certain circumstances, where husband and wife may enter into an agreement which is legally binding in nature, but here in this case there was no such circumstance.

In one of the later case of Jones vs.

Padavatton, Salmon Lord Justice had said that, intention to create a legal obligation is one of the essential elements required to enter into a contract.

Conclusion

By studying and going through the case of Balfour vs. Balfour (1919), we understand that a mere social agreement made within a family cannot be enforced in court of law, these agreements do not hold any legally binding authority. Secondly, there must be an intention to create a legal relation at the part of the parties. Owing to all this, Mr. Balfour could not be sued by Mrs. Balfour in court of

law.

This case has often been seen in coniunction with Merritt vs. Merritt 1970] 2 All ER 760;

[1970] 1 WLR 121. In Merritt vs. Merritt, though the couple was married but they already had an estranged relationship, when the agreement was made. In this respective case Mrs. Merritt requested his husband to sign a document confirming that when she would have repay the balance on the mortgage, he would transfer the matrimonial home into her sole name, which was also agreed and signed by Mr. Merritt.

Subsequently Mrs Merritt paid off the mortgage and successfully acquired a declaration from court that the house belonged to her.

In Merritt vs. Merritt scenario, agreement between them was considered to be of legal in nature by the court of law.