Contract; formation; intention to be legally bound; agreements between spouses.
Facts: Ms Cohen alleged that, before she married the defendant in 1918, he had promised to pay her £100 a year as a dress allowance. The money was to be paid in quarterly instalments of £25. The money was paid until early 1920. In 1923 the parties separated. Ms Cohen then claimed that Mr Cohen owed her £278, being unpaid instalments of the promised dress allowance.
Issue: Was the promise to pay a dress allowance intended to create a legally enforceable agreement?
Decision: Dixon J concluded that in the circumstances it could not be inferred that legally enforceable relations were intended.
Reason: On an arrangement between a couple engaged to be married, Dixon J said (at 96):
"But these matters only arise if the arrangement which the plaintiff made with the defendant was intended to affect or give rise to legal relations or to be attended with legal consequences (Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571; Rose & Frank Co v J R Crompton & Bros Ltd [1923] 2 KB 261). I think it was not so intended. The parties did no more, in my view, than discuss and concur in a proposal for the regular allowance to the wife of a sum which they considered appropriate to their circumstances at the time of marriage…"
Note: In different circumstances, it may well be inferred that agreements between married persons are intended to be legally enforceable.