'Balfour vs. Balfour Case Study\r'

'Law of castrate BALFOUR vs. BALFOUR [1919] 2K. B. 571 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. enumerate OF ABBREVIATIONS 2. LIST OF causal agencyS 3. FACTS OF THE CASE 4. ISSUES INVOLVED 5. CONTENTIONS 6. JUDGMENT 7. uprightness POINT 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS I. L. J. : Lord rightness II. AIR : any India Reporter III. QBD : promote’s Bench Division IV. CBNS : commons Bench Report (New Series) V. AER :All England ReporterVI. CLR : democracy Law Reports LIST OF CASES Cases referred to by the administration of pull in 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 same uprightness 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. slightly recent ca se heavyity of temperaments having the same law point:I. Ermogenous v Greek Jewish-Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95 Facts Archbishop Ermogenous relieve oneself a hold for payments he thought repayable for annual and keen-sighted service submit from the Greek Orthodox Community. He succeeded at first instance tho the well(p) Court of the Supreme Court of SA represent in that respect was no inclination to stimulate sanctioned dealing between the bankrupties. An stir was do to the High Court. II. EDMONDS v LAWSON (2000) FACTS OF THE CASE After their marriage in August, 1900, the parties went to Ceylon, where the economize had a government post.In November, 1915, the married woman came to England unitedly with the economise, who was on guide. they both mean to transcend to Ceylon . In August,1916,the married man’s intrust expired and he had to return to Ceylon , unless the married woman ,on the advice of her doctor ,was to remai n in England. On August 8, 1916, when the married man was about to sail, the wife alleged that the parties enter into an oral remove whereby the maintain agreed to make an readjustment of ? 30 a month. The parties had not at that time agreed to live apart, but did so subsequently when differences arose between them.An execution was taken by the wife against the husband to recover money which she claimed was due to her down the stairs the engagement, the alleged shape for that understanding world a call in by her to harbour herself without calling upon him. ISSUES INVOLVED * Was in that location whatsoever(prenominal) lawfully enforceable deal? * Was there any aspiration to enter into a reasoned family? CONTENTIONS PLAINTIFF: In this case the wife say: â€Å"In make senseptuous 1916, my husband’s leave was up . I was suffering from rheumatic arthritis. My doctor advised my staying in England for some months, and not to go out trough Nov. . I booked a transit for next sailing day in September. On august 8 my husband sailed. He gave me a cheque from august 8 to august 31 for 24 pounds, and annunciated to give me 30 pounds per month gutter I joined him in Ceylon. ”She to a fault showed some garner about which she verbalize: â€Å"My husband and I wrote the figures together on august 8 and 34 pounds were shown. later he said 30 pounds. ” She cherished to recover money from her husband. DEFENDANT: The let down approach entered pattern in promote of the plaintiff and held that the defendant’s forecast to send money was enforceable.The court held that Mrs. Balfour’s consent was suitable consideration to bring home the bacon the shrivel enforceable and the defendant stired. think ofer At first instance, Sargant, J. , who was sitting as an additional judge of the King’s Bench Division took into account the points that the wife in this case sued her husband claiming that her husband ha d agreed to give her an allowance of ? 30 per month which he failed to give, she claimed that there was a cover version well-grounded contract and the husband shall in consideration of a forestall by the wife pay her the sum of ? 0 a month . Sargant J. held that there was a binding agreement and gave the descion in the favor of the wife after this an put forward was filed by the husband. Warrington,L. J. a judge in the court of appeal far-famed that there was a valid consideration in this case and said that : â€Å"It seems to me on these letters that there was a definite covenant between the husband and the wife on a lower floor which ,while the husband was in India and in a sufficient position and the wife was in England quick separate from him ,she should be paying a definite sum of ? 0 a month ,and that agreement was made when the husband retuned to Ceylon ,and was reaffirmed on at to the lowest degree two occasions after depressing differences had shown themselves ,a t any rate on the part of the husband ,and when it was probable that their separation mogul last for some time. ” Then he proceeded by saying that there was not exactly a valid contract because this agreement continued because of the circumstances which arose and this agreement butt jointnot be termed as a legal contract because the mark to enter into a legal relation is missing.He observed that it was quite an plain that no such contract was made in express terms, and there wasn’t 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 obligatory for the support of the wife while she was in England,there wasn’t any proof that the wife wanted the sum of ? 30 as a compensation or in the satis evention of the obligations of the husband towards her to maintain her. He said that â€Å"the husband expressed his intent to make the payment, and he was qualify in honour to continu e it so long as he was in a position to do so.The wife on the different hand, as far as I can see, made no bargain at all. ”He think by saying that the judgment made by Sargant, J. , was wrong and the appeal should be allowed. DUKE,L. J. another judge in the court of appeal agreed with Warrington,L. J. and said that the just now question in this case is whether the prefigure of the husband to the wife ,that while she was living absent from him he will make her a periodical allowance, is a promise which involves in law consideration on the part of the wife sufficient to diversify the promise into an agreement.He said that according to him there wasn’t any legally enforceable contract and the basis of this agreement was the descent of husband and wife and the proposition that the uncouth promises made in the ordinary home(prenominal) family of husband and wife of extremity gives cause for action on a contract seems to go to the root of the relationship .He concl uded by saying â€Å"I think that in point of precept there is no foundation for the claim which is made here ,and I am satisfied on the question of fact that there was no consideration pathetic from the husband to the wife or promise by the husband to the wife which was sufficient to sustain this action founded simply on contract . In my view ,the appeal moldiness be allowed. ” ATKIN,L. J. lso supported the judgment 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 needed for a legally enforceable contract, in addition to this the function to be be by legal consequences is also absent. such(prenominal) cases can’t be sued upon because the parties in the inception of the arrangement never intended that they should be sued upon. He said : â€Å"I think that the parol evidences upon which the contract turns does not rear a contract .I think that the scripted evidenc es don’t evidence a contract . For this reason I think that the judgment of the learned judge in the court below was wrong ,and that this appeal should be allowed. LAW POINT The law point in this case is: innovation to fix legal relationship. Intention to cook legal relations is an essential subdivision for creation of a contract. Intention to perform legal relations is defined as an intention to enter a legally binding agreement or contract. It consists of lot of a troupe to accept the legal sequences of having entered into an agreement.Intention to give rise legal relations is a motion of every contracting party must have the necessary intention to enter into a legally binding contract. Promise in the case of fond engagements is more often than not 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 walk ,to go to a movie, to play some game, or entertain another pers on with with a dinner, cannot be enforced in a court of law.Sometimes the parties may expressly consultation that it is not a formal or legal agreement, whereas in some other cases such an intention could be presumed from their agreement. to a lower place UK law, an agreement supported by consideration is not enough to create a legally binding contract; the parties must also have an intention to create legal relations. Often, the intention to create legal 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 put on that in social and domestic casing of agreements this type of intention is absent, but parties do intend to create legal relations in commercial agreements. It is assumed that this teaching was not clearly established until 1919. Alternatively, it can be said that the Doctrine is found upon public policy; 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 subjective 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 generally no intention to create legal relationship but there is nada which prevents these persons from agreeing to be bound by their promises thereof if an arrangement clearly shows an intention to create legal relationship the parties become bound thereby.It is still an open question whether in the express provisions in the Indian Contract Act ,1872,the requirement of intention to contract is applicable in India. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. unproblematic origination [1918-19] All E. R. Rep. B. SECONDARY SOURCE Indian Contract Act â€R. K. Ba ngia C. other SOURCES www. indlaw. com www. indiankanoon. org http://www. australiancontractlaw. com\r\n'