There are two issues in this case; firstly, whether there is a legal contract binding between Dr.

Kay and Dr.

Subra. Secondly, whether Dr. Kays wife can sue him for breach of contract under social and domestic
agreement.

The general rule where social and domestic relationships are concerned is that there is no intention to
create legal relations. This is based on public policy considerations to encourage individuals to take
responsibility for their domestic and social affairs, and to reduce these issues to be brought for the courts
determination.

In the case of Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, the husband went to Sri Lanka to work. His wife was sick
and could not follow, so she stayed back in the United Kingdom wherein the husband agreed to pay the
wife 30 a month. The learned judge held that there was a contract between the husband and his wife
for the husband to maintain his wife during the temporary separation at 30 a month. However, on
appeal, it was held that there was no intention to create legal relations, Atkin LJ emphasized that the
home is a domain to which the kings writ does not run. The Court also noted that this was a case where
the husband and wife were living in amity.

However in Merritt v Merritt, the husband and wife were separated. The husband agreed to pay his wife
and to transfer the house to her; the wife was to pay the instalments due on the house. These
arrangements were put into writing. The wife paid the instalments but the husband refused to transfer
the house to her. The Court of Appeal held that in this case, there was intention to create legal relations
and the wife could take action or breach of contract.

Thus, in the given situation, we can assume there was no written arrangement made between them but
only a mere promise made by Dr. Kay to buy the car as a gift for his wife. This results in