Balfour V Balfour: (1919) 2 KB 571, (1918-19) All ER860 (Court of Appeal)

Balfour v Balfour
[1919]2 KB 571,[1918-19] All ER860(Court of Appeal)
Mr Balfour and Mrs Balfour went to England when the husband was on leave.
At the end of the trip, the wife is not encouraging flying back due to her health
problem. Before Mr Balfour return to Ceylon, he promised to give his wife monthly
allowance of £30 as a support until she able to rejoin him. Mrs Balfour would support
herself with that money without asking for extra. After that, Balfour couple’s
marriage became deteriorated and started living apart. Mrs Balfour are permanently
remained in England, but Mr Balfour suspended her monthly allowance. Mrs Balfour
took the argument to court and state that Mr Balfour violated his promise and
suspended her monthly allowance of £30. She states that there is a contractual right to
the money between them. The court held that they are spouse, their agreement does
not reach the status of a contract, just an ordinary domestic arrangement and two
parties agreed to walk together where there is an offer and acceptance. The agreement
between husband and wife mostly in such form which is one party provide monthly
allowance as a basic. But, this kind of agreement does not consider as a contract
because they have no intention to create legal relations.
Based on Balfour v Balfour case, two parties which is in family status or

friends are presumed to have no intention to create legal relations. Therefore, In the
case of Angelina with Hans and Mark, they fall under the social or domestic
arrangement which is both party which having family status or friends do not have
intention to create legal relations and their transactions do not have legal
consequences. Therefore, Angelina cannot insist on Marks and Hans to pay the full
amounts of initial promises.
Merritt v Merritt
[1970] 2 All ER 760 (Court of Appeal)
Mr Merritt and Mrs Merritt, they bought a freehold house, with a considerable
sum on mortgage with a building society which is they both agree to put their house
under joint names. After that, her husband left his wife and went to live with another
woman. The wife forced her husband to make some arrangements for their future.
After that, the husband state that he would pay a monthly allowance of £40 per month
and informed her wife that she needs to pay for the outstanding fees £180 for the
house mortgage. So, they decided to sign a document in which that stated that
consideration that wife paying all the fees of the house’s mortgage, he only will agree
to transfer the property to his wife’s name. Mrs Merritt have successfully paid off the
house mortgage and declare that the house belonged to her but her husband refused to
transfer the property to his wife’s name and debate that their agreement is consider as
family nature and there is no intention to create legal relations. The husband brought
this incident to the court but he fails. After that, Mr Merritt made an appeal but the
court held that Mr Merritt’s appeal was not successful. This is because the agreement
is made when Mr Merritt and Mrs Merritt were not living together under ordinary
circumstance and his wife is paying the mortgage for the property, had given enough
consideration. Besides that, she had honoured the promise of the husband and she was
not getting the property for free; she was paying the price for it.
The presumption where an agreement is not intention to be legally binding is

rebutted in this case when both parties had officially signed a written contract. Based
on the case of Merritt v Merritt, they signed a contract which state the house will be
transfer to Mrs Merritt’s name once she had settled down all the house mortgage.
From this, they have intention to create legal relations. Therefore, Mr Merritt does not
have the rights to own the house. Based on the case of Angelina, If Angelina had
signed any written contract with Hans and Mark, Angelina can insist on Marks and
Hans to pay the full amounts of initial promises even both is her friend or family.
Yap Eng Thong & Anor v Faber Uni on Ltd
[1959] 1 MLJ67 (Court of Appeal, Singapore)
In the case of Yap Eng Thong and Anor v Faber Union Ltd, the plaintiff had
signed an agreement on the purchase of a semi-detached bungalow which is
constructed on a piece of land. A sum of $500 paid by plaintiff as an option money.
The plaintiff was required to sign an agreement with the defendant within six
weeks of agreement, otherwise the defendants have the rights to re-sell the
property to another person and the plaintiff will lose the option money. There is no
agreement of sale was entered and defendant abolish the sale to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff brings this argument to the court and claimed lose for breach of contract,
insisting there are already existence of legally binding contract. Before the
execution of the agreement for sale, the parties were still in negotiations stage and
there is not any binding contract had yet been signed between them. Due to the
agreement does not create any legally binding contract, therefore the action of the
plaintiff must be cancelled.
Based on Yap Eng Thong and Anor v Faber Union Ltd.’s case, the plaintiff
unable to claim for the lose because there the absence of legal contract between them.
In the case of Angelina, she cannot insist Mark and Hans to pay the full amounts of
initial promises even she done her work due to there is not any legally binding
contract between them.
Wakeling v Ripley
(1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183
Ripley was an elderly and wealthy man resided alone in Sydney. The plaintiffs
were his sister and her husband. In 1946, the defendant wrote to his sister to persuade
her and her husband move to Sydney and live with him. In the letter, he promised that
they can live in his house and he would leave them all his property upon his death.
After discussion, plaintiffs agree with the defendant's suggestions. The husband
resigned, they sold their house and they move to Sydney live with the defendant. A
year later, the parties having conflict, the defendant break his promise, sold his house
and remove the plaintiffs’ name as heir to his home. They take the argument to the
court and the plaintiffs claimed that there was an intention to create legal relations and
there is a legally binding contract between them. At first, they succeeded claimed
£12,000 for damages. The defendant made an appeal held that the agreement was
purely social and there is no intention to create legal relations. He failed due to there
is voluminous correspondence between the parties and the defendant included
plaintiffs in his will. This had shown that the parties had intention to create legal
relations
The presumption where an agreement is not intention to be legally binding is

rebutted in this case when both parties had officially signed a written contract. The
principle of this case can be applied to Angelina’s case if she had signed a legally
binding contract and she will be able to claim back the money from both. Even that,
Angelina and Mark are family but there is promises between them and this had shown
the intention to create legal relations.
Balfour v Balfour
 https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/merritt-v-merritt.php
 law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/1953/18273-1.html
 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1778540.html
 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87960d03e7f57ec1097
 https://www.coursehero.com/file/34581511/Balfour-v-Balfourdocx/
Merritt v Merritt
 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87960d03e7f57ec1097
 https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/merritt-v-merritt.php
Yap Eng Thong and Anor v Faber Union Ltd

 https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7iq0fq4/In-Yap-Eng-Thong-v-Faber-Union-Ltd-
1973-1-MLJ-191-the-communications-between/
 https://books.google.com.my/books?
id=pOK_OdvmUDwC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=yap+eng+thong+
%26+anor+v+faber+union+ltd&source=bl&ots=rjS0q9yBn2&sig=ACfU3U1x0wdul7raJ
p8gMtFLe6eggypOng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFrbr_rd3lAhVp6nMBHbIqC3gQ6
AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=yap%20eng%20thong%20%26%20anor%20v
%20faber%20union%20ltd&f=false
Wakeling v Ripley
 http://helpcasebriefs.blogspot.com/2014/03/wakeling-v-ripley-1951.html

Balfour V Balfour: (1919) 2 KB 571, (1918-19) All ER860 (Court of Appeal)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balfour V Balfour: (1919) 2 KB 571, (1918-19) All ER860 (Court of Appeal)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balfour v Balfour

[1919]2 KB 571,[1918-19] All ER860(Court of Appeal)

Based on Balfour v Balfour case, two parties which is in family status or

The presumption where an agreement is not intention to be legally binding is

The presumption where an agreement is not intention to be legally binding is

Yap Eng Thong and Anor v Faber Union Ltd

You might also like