balfor
Balfour v. Balfour – Case Brief Summary
Summary of Balfour v. Balfour, 2 K.B. 571 (1919).
Facts
Mr. Balfour (D) and Mrs. Balfour (P) lived in Ceylon and visited England on a vacation. The plaintiff remained in England for medical treatment and the defendant agreed to send her a specific amount of money each month until she could return. The defendant later asked to remain separated and Mrs. Balfour sued for restitution of her conjugal rights and for alimony equal to the amount her husband had agreed to send.
Mrs. Balfour obtained a decree nisi and five months later was granted an order for alimony. 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.
Issues
1. Must both parties intend that an agreement be legally binding in order to be an enforceable contract?
2. Under what circumstances will a court decline to enforce an agreement between spouses?
Holding and Rule
1. Yes. Both parties must intend that an agreement be legally binding in order to be an enforceable contract.
2. The court will not enforce agreements between spouses that involve daily life.
Agreements between husband and wife over matters that affect their daily lives are not subject to contractual interpretation, even when consideration is present. Spouses normally intend that the terms of their agreements can be varied as situations develop. The court held that it was presumed that the parties made the agreement as husband and wife and did not intend that it could be sued upon. The court held that as a matter of public policy it could not resolve disputes between spouses.
Disposition
Judgment for plaintiff Mrs. Balfour reversed.
Note
Contracts related to the social aspect of marriage will not be enforced by the courts. Contracts between spouses related to business
Summary of Balfour v. Balfour, 2 K.B. 571 (1919).
Facts
Mr. Balfour (D) and Mrs. Balfour (P) lived in Ceylon and visited England on a vacation. The plaintiff remained in England for medical treatment and the defendant agreed to send her a specific amount of money each month until she could return. The defendant later asked to remain separated and Mrs. Balfour sued for restitution of her conjugal rights and for alimony equal to the amount her husband had agreed to send.
Mrs. Balfour obtained a decree nisi and five months later was granted an order for alimony. 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.
Issues
1. Must both parties intend that an agreement be legally binding in order to be an enforceable contract?
2. Under what circumstances will a court decline to enforce an agreement between spouses?
Holding and Rule
1. Yes. Both parties must intend that an agreement be legally binding in order to be an enforceable contract.
2. The court will not enforce agreements between spouses that involve daily life.
Agreements between husband and wife over matters that affect their daily lives are not subject to contractual interpretation, even when consideration is present. Spouses normally intend that the terms of their agreements can be varied as situations develop. The court held that it was presumed that the parties made the agreement as husband and wife and did not intend that it could be sued upon. The court held that as a matter of public policy it could not resolve disputes between spouses.
Disposition
Judgment for plaintiff Mrs. Balfour reversed.
Note
Contracts related to the social aspect of marriage will not be enforced by the courts. Contracts between spouses related to business
References: Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J. (1988). Self-defeating behavior pat- terns among normal individuals: Review and analysis of common Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype- based judgments Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. S. (1987). Social cognition and social reality: Information acquisition and use in the laboratory and the Bramel, D. (1963). Selection of a target for defensive projection. Jour- nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 318-324. Burish, T. G., & Houston, B. K. (1979). Causal projection, similarity projection, and coping with threat to self-esteem Campbell, D., Miller, N., Lubetsky, J., & O’Connell, E. (1964). Variet- ies of projection in trait attribution Clement, R. W., & Krueger, J. (2002). Social categorization moderates social projection Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components Edlow, D. W., & Kiesler, C. A. (1966). Ease of denial and defensive pro- jection Epstein, R., & Baron, R. M. (1969). Cognitive dissonance and pro- jected hostility toward outgroups Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others Feshbach, S., & Singer, R. D. (1957). The effects of fear arousal and suppression of fear upon social perception Freud, A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. London: Hogarth. collected papers of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 1). London: Hogarth. (Origi- nal work published 1924) Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In S Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing ingroup bias: The com- mon ingroup identity model Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs Govorun, O., Fuegen, K., & Payne, B. K. (2005). [The effect of projec- tion on self-ratings] Halpern, J. (1977). Projection: A test of the psychoanalytic hypothe- sis Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicabil- ity, and salience Holmes, D. S. (1968). Dimensions of projection. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 248-268. Holmes, D. S. (1978). Projection as a defense mechanism. Psychologi- cal Bulletin, 85, 677-688. Holmes, D. S., & Houston, B. K. (1971). The defensive function of projection Horney, K. (1939). New ways in psychoanalysis. New York: Norton. (2004). The projection of implicit and explicit goals. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 86, 545-559. Kunda, Z., Davies, P. G., Adams, B., & Spencer, S. J. (2002). The dynamic time course of stereotype activation: Activation, dissipa- Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goal-based theory of stereo- Lambert, A. J., Cronen, S., Chasteen, A., & Lickel, B. (1996). Private vs Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perception of others: The role of projective mechanisms of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1022-1034. Murstein, B. I., & Pryer, R. S. (1959). The concept of projection: A review Newman, L. S., & Caldwell, T. L. (2005). Allport’s “living inkblots”: The role of defensive projection in stereotyping and prejudice Newman, L. S., Caldwell, T. L., Chamberlin, B., & Griffin, T. (2005). Newman, L. S., Duff, K. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). A new look at defensive projection: Thought suppression, accessibility, and