Fact:
Here the plaintiff and the defendant were wife and husband. They went for a vacation in England and the plaintiff (wife) became ill. For that reason, she cannot go back to the place where they used to live and decided to stay in England for medical assistance. In that case the husband (defendant) had to go back to the place they used to live but before going he promised his wife to give $30 per month until he returns to England again. After that their relationship broke down and the husband refused to give money to his wife. For that reason, Mrs. Balfour brought a case against Mr. Balfour claiming the money. The lower court held that there was sufficient consideration that’s why Mr. Balfour is bound to pay the money. Mr. Balfour appealed against tis judgement.
Issue:
Whether the contract between Mr. and Mrs. Balfour was a valid contract or not?
Judgement:
Here the court held that the agreement between appellant and the respondent was totally a family matter that is why it is purely under social and domestic matter. It is not legally binding for the appellant to pay the money to his wife on the other hand it is also not reasonable for the court to interfere into the daily affairs of a husband and wife. For that reason, the appellant is not bound to pay the money to the respondent.
Reasoning:
Agreement between a husband and wife is not considered as contract because it is not legally enforceable and under the domestic matter. If such matter is enforceable by law then there is very much possibility to misuse it.
