| Balfour v. Balfour | |
| Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | |
| Date decided: | 25 June 1919 |
| Full case name: | Balfour and Balfour |
| Citations: | [1919] 2 K.B. 571 |
| Judges sitting: | Warrington, Duke and Atkin L. JJ |
| Cases cited: | none |
| Legislation cited: | Married Women's Property Act 1882 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions: | None |
| Subsequent actions: | None |
| Keywords | |
| Causes of action; Divorce; Maintenance; Marriage; Oral contracts | |
Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 is a famous English contract law case that held that there is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create a legally enforceable agreement when the agreement is domestic in nature. Using contract-like terms, Mr. Balfour had agreed to give his wife £30 a month as maintenance for while he was off living in Ceylon. Once he had left, they separated and Mr. Balfour stopped payments. Mrs. Balfour brought an action to enforce the payments. At the Court of Appeal, the Court held that there was no enforceable agreement as there was not enough evidence to suggest that they were intending to be legally bound by the promise. The case is often cited in conjunction with Merritt v. Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760; [1970] 1 WLR 1211; CA. Here the court distinguished the case from Balfour v. Balfour on the fact that Mr and Mrs Merritt, although still married, were estranged at the time the agreement was made and therefore any agreement between them was made with the intention to create legal relations. Both cases are often quoted examples of the principle of precedent.
