Balfour vs. Balfour Case Study

Law of puzzle BALFOUR vs. BALFOUR 1919 2K. B. 571 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. itemisation OF ABBREVIATIONS 2. LIST OF possibilityS 3. FACTS OF THE CASE 4. ISSUES INVOLVED 5. CONTENTIONS 6. JUDGMENT 7. LAW POINT 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS I. L. J. Lord justice II. AIR All India Reporter III. QBD Queens Bench sectionalisation IV. CBNS Common Bench Report (New Series) V. AER All England ReporterVI. CLR Commonwealth Law Reports LIST OF CASES Cases referred to by the administration of magic spell in Balfour vs. Balfour I. Eastland vs. Burchell (1878),3 Q. B. D. 432 II. Jolly vs. Rees (1864),15 C. B. N. S. 628 III. Debenham vs. Mellon (1880),6 App. Cas. 24 Cases having the aforesaid(prenominal) natural law point as Balfour vs. Balfour I. Rose and Frank Co. vs. Crompton & Bros. Ltd. (1925) A. C. 445 II. Jones vs. Padavatton (1969) All E. R. 616 III. Meritt vs. Meritt (1970) 2 All E. R. 760 IV. S. V. R. Mudaliar vs. Rajababu AIR 1995 SC 1607. Some recent case laws having th e aforesaid(prenominal) law pointI. Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95 Facts Archbishop Ermogenous make a claim for payments he thought due for yearbook and long service leave from the Greek Orthodox Community. He succeeded at first instance but the Full appeal of the Supreme Court of SA found thither was no intention to create effectual relations between the parties. An appeal was make to the High Court. II. EDMONDSv LAWSON(2000) FACTS OF THE CASE later on their marriage in August, 1900, the parties went to Ceylon, where the married man had a government post.In November, 1915, the wife came to England unneurotic with the preserve, who was on leave. they both intended to return to Ceylon . In August,1916,the saves leave expired and he had to return to Ceylon ,but the wife ,on the advice of her doctor ,was to sojourn in England. On August 8, 1916, when the husband was ab issue to sail, the wife aver that the parties enter into an oral stud y whereby the husband agreed to make an earnings of ? 30 a month. The parties had non at that time agreed to drop dead apart, but did so subsequently when differences arose between them.An action was taken by the wife against the husband to recover money which she claimed was due to her under the compact, the say consideration for that agreement being a forecast by her to agree herself without calling upon him. ISSUES INVOLVED * Was there any level-headedly enforceable castrate? * Was there any intention to enter into a sound kindred? CONTENTIONS PLAINTIFF In this case the wife said In frightful 1916, my husbands leave was up . I was suffering from decrepit arthritis. My doctor advised my staying in England for some months, and not to go out till Nov. . I booked a passage for next piloting day in September. On august 8 my husband sailed. He gave me a cheque from august 8 to august 31 for 24 pounds, and hoped to give me 30 pounds per month till I joined him in Ceylon. Sh e to a fault showed some garner about which she said My husband and I wrote the figures together on august 8 and 34 pounds were shown. Afterwards he said 30 pounds. She cherished to recover money from her husband. DEFENDANT The reject court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and held that the defendants promise to send money was enforceable.The court held that Mrs. Balfours consent was adapted consideration to render the contract enforceable and the defendant appealed. JUDGEMENT At first instance, Sargant, J. , who was sitting as an additional judge of the Kings Bench Division took into account the points that the wife in this case sued her husband claiming that her husband had agreed to give her an allowance of ? 30 per month which he failed to give, she claimed that there was a bind legal contract and the husband shall in consideration of a promise by the wife pay her the bring of ? 0 a month . Sargant J. held that there was a binding agreement and gave the descion in the favor of the wife by and by this an appeal was filed by the husband. Warrington,L. J. a judge in the court of appeal noted that there was a valid consideration in this case and said that It seems to me on these letters that there was a definite bargain between the husband and the wife under which ,while the husband was in India and in a fitted aim and the wife was in England living separate from him ,she should be paid a definite sum of ? 0 a month ,and that agreement was made when the husband retuned to Ceylon ,and was reaffirmed on at least two occasions after unhappy differences had shown themselves ,at any rate on the part of the husband ,and when it was probable that their separation might last for some time. Then he proceeded by saying that there was not exactly a valid contract because this agreement last outd because of the circumstances which arose and this agreement cannot be termed as a legal contract because the intention to enter into a legal apprisal is missing.He observed that it was quite plain that no such contract was made in express terms, and there wasnt any bargain on the part of the wife at all. All that took place was this the two parties met in a friendly way and discussed what would be unavoidable for the support of the wife while she was in England,there wasnt any proof that the wife wanted the sum of ? 30 as a compensation or in the satisfaction of the obligations of the husband towards her to maintain her. He said that the husband denotative his intention to make the payment, and he was bound in honour to continue it so long as he was in a redact to do so.The wife on the early(a) hand, as far as I can see, made no bargain at all. He concluded by saying that the judgment made by Sargant, J. , was wrongfulness and the appeal should be allowed. DUKE,L. J. another(prenominal) judge in the court of appeal agreed with Warrington,L. J. and said that the only question in this case is whether the promise of the husband t o the wife ,that while she was living absent from him he testament make her a periodical allowance, is a promise which involves in law consideration on the part of the wife sufficient to convert the promise into an agreement.He said that according to him there wasnt any legally enforceable contract and the basis of this agreement was the relationship of husband and wife and the proposition that the rough-cut promises made in the ordinary domestic relationship of husband and wife of necessity gives cause for action on a contract seems to go to the root of the relationship .He concluded by saying I think that in point of principle there is no earthing for the claim which is made here ,and I am satisfied on the question of fact that there was no consideration moving from the husband to the wife or promise by the husband to the wife which was sufficient to sustain this action founded merely on contract . In my mentation ,the appeal must be allowed. ATKIN,L. J. lso supported the ju dgment of the other two judges and said that in the arrangements between husband and wife mutual promises are present but there is no consideration which is necessary for a legally enforceable contract, in addition to this the intention to be attended by legal consequences is also absent. Such cases cant be sued upon because the parties in the inception of the arrangement never intended that they should be sued upon. He said I think that the parol recounts upon which the contract turns does not demonstrate a contract .I think that the written evidences dont evidence a contract . For this reason I think that the judgment of the in condition(p) judge in the court below was wrong ,and that this appeal should be allowed. LAW POINT The law point in this case is endeavor to create legal relationship. Intention to create legal relations is an necessity element for creation of a contract. Intention to create legal relations is defined as an intention to enter a legally binding agreeme nt or contract. It consists of readiness of a party to accept the legal sequences of having entered into an agreement.Intention to create legal relations is a motion of every spotting party must have the necessary intention to enter into a legally binding contract. Promise in the case of social engagements is by and large without an intention to create a legal relationship. Such an agreement therefore, cannot be considered to be a contract. Thus an agreement to go for a liberty chit ,to go to a movie, to play some game, or entertain another person with with a dinner, cannot be enforced in a court of law.Sometimes the parties may expressly mention that it is not a formal or legal agreement, whereas in some other cases such an intention could be presumed from their agreement. Under UK law, an agreement supported by consideration is not plenty to create a legally binding contract the parties must also have an intention to create legal relations. Often, the intention to create lega l relations is expressly stated by the contracting parties. In other situations, the law will readily imply the intention, because of the nature of the commercial dealings between the parties.Generally it is assumed that in social and domestic geek of agreements this type of intention is absent, but parties do intend to create legal relations in commercial agreements. It is assumed that this doctrine was not clear accomplished until 1919. Alternatively, it can be said that the Doctrine is based upon public insurance that is to say that, as a matter of policy, the law of contract ought not to intervene in domestic situations because the courts would then be swamped by vacant domestic disputes.The test to know the intention of the parties is objective and not indwelling merely because the promisor contends that there was no intention to create legal obligation would not exempt him from liability. It may be noted that although in the case of close relationship there may be general ly no intention to create legal relationship but there is nothing which prevents these persons from agreeing to be bound by their promises thus if an arrangement clearly shows an intention to create legal relationship the parties become bound thereby.It is restrained an open question whether in the express provisions in the Indian make Act ,1872,the requirement of intention to contract is applicable in India. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. PRIMARY SOURCE 1918-19 All E. R. Rep. B. SECONDARY SOURCE Indian Contract Act R. K. Bangia C. OTHER SOURCES www. indlaw. com www. indiankanoon. org http//www. australiancontractlaw. com