Mr. Balfour promised to pay his wife £30 per month while they were separated due to her health issues. When he stopped payments, she sued to enforce the promise. The lower court ruled in her favor, finding the promise enforceable. However, the appellate court determined that for a promise between spouses to be legally binding, both parties must intend it to be enforceable. Since there was no evidence Mr. Balfour intended a legally binding agreement, the appellate court found the promise was not enforceable.

1. Balfour v Balfour

2. Balfour v Balfour
 Citation - Balfour v Balfour, [1919] 2 KB 571
 Appellant- Mr. Balfour
 Respondent/Plaintiff -Mrs. Balfour
 Year- 1919
 Court- Court of Appeal of England and Wales
 Judges - Atkin, Warrington, and Duke LJJ
 Country - United Kingdom
 Area of law - Enforcement of promises, Family
arrangements

3. Facts of the Case
 Mr. Balfour was a civil engineer, and worked for the Government as the
Director of Irrigation in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).
 Mrs. Balfour was living with him. In 1915, they both came back to
England during Mr. Balfour's leave.
 But Mrs. Balfour had developed rheumatic arthritis. Her doctor advised
her to stay in England, because a jungle climate would be detrimental
to her health.
 As Mr. Balfour's boat was about to set sail, he promised her £30 a
month until she came back to Ceylon. They drifted apart, and Mr
Balfour wrote saying it was better that they remain apart.
 In March 1918, Mrs. Balfour sued him to keep up with the monthly £30
payments. In July she got a decree nisi and in December she obtained
an order for alimony.

4. Issue of the Case
 Was Mr. Balfour's offer intended to be legally
binding?
 Does the fact that they were husband and wife
matter?

5. Judgment of the Case
 The lower court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff
and held that the defendant’s promise to send money was
enforceable.
 The court held that Mrs. Balfour’s consent was sufficient
consideration to render the contract enforceable and the
defendant appealed.
 The court said that:
 It is essential that both the parties should intend that an
agreement be legally binding so at to become enforceable.
 The courts will not interfere between the spouses in their
day to day affairs.