phân tích và nghiên cứu án lệ

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 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 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, the court held that it could not resolve disputes between spouses in daily life b Must both parties expressly show their intents that their agreement will be legally binding to enforce a contract? Yes, the court held that both parties must intend that an agreement will be legally binding in order to be an enforceable contract However, the issue was not completely resolved for the reason that the court did not find how the parties to the agreement can show their intents to so, expressly (For example, both parties should write down on the agreement that ‘This agreement is intended to be legally binding’) Recommend any other legal reasoning or findings possible In the case Balfour v Balfour, we would like to recommend another possible legal reasoning by applying the doctrine of Promissory estoppel Promissory estoppel is a doctrine in common law, which prohibits a promisor from denying the making of a promise or from escaping the liability for that promise because of the justifiable reliance of the promisee that the promise would be kept Promissory estoppel is usually applied when there is no formal contract, but the parties involved have acted as if there was one Promissory estoppel arises when injustice can be avoided only by the enforcement of a promise that would otherwise be unenforceable for lack of consideration Contracts enforced under the doctrine of promissory estoppel are unique in that they are usually missing the consideration piece According to the case where Duke L.J reasoned that ‘The wife’s consent (to give up her right to pledge the husband’s credit), therefore, cannot be treated as consideration to support such a contract as this’, we suppose that the Balfour case met all the conditions required by the doctrine to apply, they are: (1) Mr Balfour, the offeror, promised to his wife that he would hold the offer giving her 30£ per month open; (2) Mrs Balfour relied on the promise, therefore did not call upon her husband for any further maintenance; (3) She suffered a detriment thereby (she did not receive any help from her husband when she followed a medical treatment, and also gave up her right to pledge the husband’s credit as a direct result of relying on the promise); and (4) injustice can be avoided only by forcing the offeror, Mr Balfour, to leave the offer open For the reasons above, we understand that judges and courts in common law not usually intervene in personal affairs to make them just, but they can help restore balance when someone has been harmed In conclusion, we believe the court could uphold the claim for restitution of conjugal rights of Mrs Balfour, and prohibit Mr Balfour from denying the making of payment he promised to give his wife We are respectfully aware that the case Balfour v Balfour has been an outstanding, irreplaceable and irrebuttable case in English jurisdiction Hence, with our limited knowledge in case law, we would like to recommend an unnoticeable mean of legal reasoning to the case at hand Thank you!