Mr. Balfour was a civil engineer, and worked for the Government as the Director of Irrigation in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).

Mr Balfour's boat was about to set sail, and he orally promised her £30 a month until she came back to Ceylon.

At first instance, judge Charles Sargant held that Mr Balfour was under an obligation to support his wife.

He placed weight on the fact that the parties had not yet been divorced, and that the promise had been made still whilst as husband and wife.

That was why in Eastland v Burchell 3 QBD 432, the agreement for separation was found by the learned judge to have been of decisive consequence.

In order to establish a contract there ought to be something more than mere mutual promises having regard to the domestic relations of the parties.

I think, therefore, that the appeal must be allowed.Lord Justice Atkin[2] took a different approach, emphasising that there was no "intention to affect legal relations".

That was so because it was a domestic agreement between husband and wife, and it meant the onus of proof was on the plaintiff, Mrs Balfour.

The ordinary example is where two parties agree to take a walk together, or where there is an offer and an acceptance of hospitality.

It is quite common, and it is the natural and inevitable result of the relationship of husband and wife, that the two spouses should make arrangements between themselves - agreements such as are in dispute in this action - agreements for allowances, by which the husband agrees that he will pay to his wife a certain sum of money, per week, or per month, or per year, to cover either her own expenses or the necessary expenses of the household and of the children of the marriage, and in which the wife promises either expressly or impliedly to apply the allowance for the purpose for which it is given.

The consideration, as we know, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.

To my mind it would be of the worst possible example to hold that agreements such as this resulted in legal obligations which could be enforced in the Courts.

All I can say is that the small Courts of this country would have to be multiplied one hundredfold if these arrangements were held to result in legal obligations.

The terms may be repudiated, varied or renewed as performance proceeds or as disagreements develop, and the principles of the common law as to exoneration and discharge and accord and satisfaction are such as find no place in the domestic code.

For the reasons given by my brethren it appears to me to be plainly established that the promise here was not intended by either party to be attended by legal consequences.