Balfour V. Balfour [1919]
Balfour v. Balfour [1919]
1. Comment on whether you agree with the legal reasoning of parties? the findings of the court? Why?
Firstly, the counsels on behalf of Mr. Balfour alleged the agreement between the Balfour as an invalid contract as the wife gave no consideration for the promise. This agreement was only regarded as a domestic arrangement caused by the absence of the husband who was supposed to work oversea. Moreover, the Court of Appeal was inclined to support this argument of the husband. The panel of judges including Washington L.J, Duke L.J and Akin L.J unanimously asserted that there was no binding contract in this case due to the lack of consideration moving from the wife to the husband and also pointed out that the agreement the Balfour entered into did not conform to terms of contract in their jurisdiction.
Secondly, the wife implied that the Balfour made a separation agreement; therefore, she was entitled to sue for allowance she accepted by giving up the right to pledge her husband’s credit. However, the Court of Appeal overruled that the claim with the reason that the husband and wife lived apart was under no mutual consent.
Thirdly, arguments of court for dispute between the Balfour were definitely concrete enough to dispose of the previous awards originating from Sargant J. Furthermore, the judges of the Court of Appeal shown the wide view on this case to create a consistent rule for other cases which are similar to Balfour v Balfour.
2. State what legal issues and the ways in which the issues were or were not resolved?
The legal issues herein were: a. What kind of agreement between spouses will not be enforced by the court?
The agreements which relate to daily life between spouses will not be enforced by the court. Even when the consideration is present, spouses usually intend that the terms of their agreements can be varied as their circumstances change and that the agreements in question could not be sued upon. Hence,
1. Comment on whether you agree with the legal reasoning of parties? the findings of the court? Why?
Firstly, the counsels on behalf of Mr. Balfour alleged the agreement between the Balfour as an invalid contract as the wife gave no consideration for the promise. This agreement was only regarded as a domestic arrangement caused by the absence of the husband who was supposed to work oversea. Moreover, the Court of Appeal was inclined to support this argument of the husband. The panel of judges including Washington L.J, Duke L.J and Akin L.J unanimously asserted that there was no binding contract in this case due to the lack of consideration moving from the wife to the husband and also pointed out that the agreement the Balfour entered into did not conform to terms of contract in their jurisdiction.
Secondly, the wife implied that the Balfour made a separation agreement; therefore, she was entitled to sue for allowance she accepted by giving up the right to pledge her husband’s credit. However, the Court of Appeal overruled that the claim with the reason that the husband and wife lived apart was under no mutual consent.
Thirdly, arguments of court for dispute between the Balfour were definitely concrete enough to dispose of the previous awards originating from Sargant J. Furthermore, the judges of the Court of Appeal shown the wide view on this case to create a consistent rule for other cases which are similar to Balfour v Balfour.
2. State what legal issues and the ways in which the issues were or were not resolved?
The legal issues herein were: a. What kind of agreement between spouses will not be enforced by the court?
The agreements which relate to daily life between spouses will not be enforced by the court. Even when the consideration is present, spouses usually intend that the terms of their agreements can be varied as their circumstances change and that the agreements in question could not be sued upon. Hence,