Their promises are not sealed with seals and sealing wax. In my opinion it does not. For example in R v Howe & Bannister [1987] 2 WLR 568 Case summary the House of Lords held that the defence of duress was not available to murder. That can only be determined either by proving that it was made in express terms, or that there is a necessary implication from the circumstances of the parties, and the transaction generally, that such a contract was made. The agency arises where there is a separation in fact. It is impossible to say that where the relationship of husband and wife exists, and promises are exchanged, they must be deemed to be promises of a contractual nature. v. BALFOUR. 1 The subject real property is located at 410 East 15th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio. The parties were husband and wife, and subject to all the conditions, in point of law, involved in that relationship. Ratio in Latin means the reason for the decision or judgement while obiter usually refers to additional opinions or observations that are made on the issues that are involved in the case. In the Court below the plaintiff conceded that down to the time of her suing in the Divorce Division there was no separation, and that the period of absence was a period of absence as between husband and wife living in amity. For the reasons given by my brethren it appears to me to be plainly established that the promise here was [580] not intended by either party to be attended by legal consequences. I think, therefore, that in point of principle there is no foundation for the claim which is made here, and I am satisfied that there was no consideration *578 moving from the wife to the husband or promise by the husband to the wife which was sufficient to sustain this action founded on contract. referred to Lush on Husband and Wife, 3rd ed., p. 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. or 2l. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like R v Brown and others, R v Wilson, Balfour v Balfour and more. On December 16, 1918, she obtained an order for alimony. In July she got a decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimony. The plaintiff sued the defendant (her husband) for money which she claimed to be due in respect of an agreed allowance of 30l. To enforce any agreement as a contract we need some essential elements in that agreement which are following: Agreements such as these are outside the realm of contracts altogether. The parties themselves are advocates, judges, Courts, sheriff's officer and reporter. Introduction to Obiter Dicta The judge may go on to speculate about what his decision would or might have been if the facts of the case had been different. June 24, 1919. That is in my opinion sufficient to dispose of the case. In July she got a decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimony. Atkin LJ, on the other hand, invoked the. 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 parties themselves are advocates, judges, Courts, sheriff's officer and reporter. June 24-25, 1919. But Mrs Balfour had developed rheumatoid arthritis. The expression " obiter dicta " or " dicta " has been discussed in American Jurisprudence 2d, Vol. Balfour v Balfour (1919) The defendant who worked in Ceylon, came to England with his wife on holiday. As with the case Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 the courts agreed since the . During his vacations in the year 1915, they came to England. a month I will agree to forego my right to pledge your credit. Mr Balfour was a civil engineer, and worked for the Government as the Director of Irrigation in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). The ratio is the judge's ruling on a point of law, and not just a statement of the law. While it is possible that the presumption could be rebutted in some circumstances, Mrs Balfour had not rebutted it in this case. The Seven Elements Of The Seven Aspects Of Contracts Act 1950. . The husband expressed his intention to make this payment, and he promised to make it, and was bound in honour to continue it so long as he was in a position to do so. Judicial precedent contains twoelements of importance 1) The ratio decidendi (the reasons for deciding a case in aparticular way. 24 Erle C.J. Balfour was a primary teacher in the Hawkes Bay, and in 1976 he transferred to secondary teaching. states this proposition (3): "But taking the law to be, that the power of the wife to charge her husband is in the capacity of his agent, it is a solecism in reasoning to say that she derives her authority from his will, and at the same time to say that the relation of wife creates the authority against his will, by a presumptio juris et de jure from marriage." Mutual promises made in the ordinary domestic relationship of husband and wife do not of necessity give cause for action on a contract. I think the onus was upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not established any contract. Balfour v Balfour is one of the leading cases in English law since it was then decided that agreements between husband-wife are not considered as contracts since it is presumed that the two parties do not have a legal intent to create legal relations. The proposition that the mutual promises made in. Those being the facts we have to say whether there is a legal contract between the parties, in other words, whether what took place between them was in the domain of a contract or whether it was merely a domestic arrangement such as may be made every day between a husband and wife who are living together in friendly intercourse. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. The case of Balfour v. Balfour was primarily a case of English Law and gave rise to the doctrine of Legal Relationship as an essential in Contract law. 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 themselvesagreements such as are in dispute in this actionagreements 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 arid 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 matter really reduces itself to an absurdity when one considers it, because if we were to hold that there was a contract in this case we should have to hold that with regard to all the more or less trivial concerns of life where a wife, at the request of her husband, makes a promise to him, that is a promise which can be enforced in law. I think that the parol evidence upon which the case turns does not establish a contract. I do not dissent, as at present advised, from the proposition that the spouses in this case might have made an agreement which would have given the plaintiff a cause of action, and I am inclined to think that the promise of the wife in respect of her separate estate could have founded an action in contract within the principles of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. a week whatever he can afford to give her, for the maintenance of the household and children, and she promises so to apply it, not only could she sue him for his failure in any week to supply the allowance, but he could sue her for non-performance of the obligation, express or implied, which she had undertaken upon her part. Issues Raised In The Case It is a latin phrase meaning something said by the way or incidentally. Was there a valid contract between the two? His wife became ill and needed medical attention. A husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to his wife. It may be, and I do not for a moment say that it is not, possible for such a contract as is alleged in the present case to be made between husband and wife. 571. I do not dissent, as at present advised, from the proposition that the spouses in this case might have made an agreement which would have given the plaintiff a cause of action, and I am inclined to think that the promise of the wife in respect of her separate estate could have founded an action in contract within the principles of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. Those being the facts we have to say whether there is a legal contract between the parties, in other words, whether what took place between them was in the domain of a contract or whether it was merely a domestic arrangement such as may be made every day between a husband and wife who are living together in friendly intercourse. In the judgment of the majority of the Court of Common Pleas in Jolly v Rees (1864) 15 C. B. In a dispute between a husband and wife, Lord Justice Atkin said that domestic commitments were not within the jurisdiction of contract law. The plaintiff sued the defendant (her husband) for money which she claimed to be due in respect of an agreed allowance of 30 a month. or 2 a week whatever he can afford to give her, for the maintenance of the household and children, and she promises so to apply it, not only could she sue him for his failure in any week to supply the allowance, but he could sue her for non-performance of the obligation, express or implied, which she had undertaken upon her part. 386.]. Laws Involved. The wife on the other hand, so far as I can see, made no bargain at all. The question is whether such a contract was made. The defence to this action on the alleged contract is that the defendant, the husband, entered into no contract with his wife, and for the determination of that it is necessary to remember that there are agreements between parties which do not result in contracts within the meaning of that term in our law. The common law does not regulate the form of agreements between spouses. 571Decided on: 25th June, 1919. The question is whether such a contract was made. Ratio decidendi of a judgment may be defined as the principles of law formulated by the Judge for the purpose of deciding the problem before him whereas obiter dicta means observations made by the Judge, but are not essential for the decision reached. I think that the letters do not evidence such a contract, or amplify the oral evidence which was given by the wife, which is not in dispute. Here the court distinguished the case from Balfour v Balfour on the fact that Mr and Mrs Merritt, although still married, were estranged at the time the agreement was made and therefore any agreement between them was made with the intention to create legal relations. The husband was resident in Ceylon, where he held a Government appointment. The consideration that really obtains for them is that natural love and affection which counts for so little in these cold Courts. Cited - Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005. Balfour v A-G [1991] 1 NZLR 519 is a leading case in New Zealand involving negligence in tort for defamation, as well as causation. 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. He later returned to Ceylon alone, the wife remaining in England for health reasons. Agreements such as these are outside the realm of contracts altogether. To put it another way, a legal term . LIST OF CASES 3. Husband and WifeContractTemporary SeparationAllowance for Maintenance of WifeDomestic ArrangementNo resulting Contract. The parties were living together, the wife intending to return. We must now turn to consider the scope of the presumption that parties to domestic agreements do not intent to create legal relationship, the factors that have been used by the courts in order to rebut the presumption, the rationale of the presumption and finally, the relationship, in the domestic context, between the doctrine of intention to create legal relations and the doctrine of consideration. Solicitors for respondent: Sawyer & Withall, for John C. Buckwell, Brighton. Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd (1925) Persuasive precedent from dissenting judgements. The suggestion is that the husband bound himself to pay 30 a month under all circumstances, and she bound herself to be satisfied with that sum under all circumstances, and, although she was in ill-health and alone in this country, that out of that sum she undertook to defray the whole of the medical expenses that might fall upon her, whatever might be the development of her illness, and in whatever expenses it might involve her. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1891-4] All ER 127 On Nov. 13, 1891, the following advertisement was published by the defendants in the "P'all Mall Gazette": " 100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any diseases caused by taking cold, after 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. Atkin LJ, on the other hand, invoked the intention to create legal relations doctrine to decide the case, a doctrine that up to that point could only be found in the textbooks.[1]. That may be so, but it is impossible to disregard in this case what was the basis of the whole communications between the parties, under which the alleged contract is said to have been formed. Signup for our newsletter and get notified when we publish new articles for free! It is impossible to say that where the relationship of husband and wife exists, and promises are exchanged, they must be deemed to be promises of a contractual nature. 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. Balfour was a civil engineer who worked in Ceylon (modern-day Sri Lanka). Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Mr and Mrs Balfour were a married couple. In 1915, they both came back to England during Mr Balfour's leave. That is in my opinion sufficient to dispose of the case. Isolate all language in the case, both facts and law, that directly supports the . The wife on the other hand, so far as I can see, made no bargain at all. Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571. The plaintiff, as appeared from the judge's note, gave the following evidence of what took place: "In August, 1916,defendant's leave was up. Where husband and wife are only temporarily living apart an agreement like that ill the present case confers no contractual rights. Nevertheless they are not contracts, and they are not contracts because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. Decent Essays. The proposition that the mutual promises made in. The doctor advised my staying in England for some months, not to go out till November 4. The defendant was usually resident in Ceylon, but while he was on leave in England his wife took ill. She therefore had to stay behind while he returned to Ceylon. Husband and WifeContractTemporary SeparationAllowance for Maintenance of WifeDomestic ArrangementNo resulting Contract. You need our premium contract notes! The works were not completed by the contract due date (9 May 1989), and the architect issued a non . [DUKE L.J. 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. To my mind those agreements, or many of them, do not result in contracts at all, and they do not result in contracts even though there may be what as between other parties would constitute consideration for the agreement. Such statements lack the force of precedent but may nevertheless be significant. This was illustrated in the case of R v Gotts (1992), the court of Appeal followed the obiter dicta of R V Howe (1987) case as a persuasive precedent on deciding the non-availability of duress as to a charge of attempted murder. June 24-25, 1919. Duke LJ also thought that the wife in this case had not provided consideration for the husbands promise, because she had not given up any legal right (merely a social entitlement). Thank you. or 2l. The creation of legal relations is important, without which a contract cannot be formed. There was no agreement for a separation. During his vacations in the year 1915, they came to England. PROCEDURAL HISTORY An additional judge of Kings Bench Divisionpresided by Justice Sargant, held that the husband was under an obligation to support his wife and there exists a valid contract between the husband and the wife The lower court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff and held that the defendants promise to send money was enforceable The consent of the wife to this arrangement of monthly transfer was a valid consideration to constitute a binding contract between the parties. Obiter dictum (more usually used in the plural, obiter dicta) is Latin for a word said "by the way", that is, a remark in a judgment that is "said in passing". Law of contract BALFOUR vs. BALFOUR [1919] 2K.B. [3] 3. These two people never intended to make a bargain which could be enforced in law. For the purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi is binding, whereas obiter dicta are persuasive only. That the defendant was putting up together in Sri Lanka with his wife Mrs Balfour, who is the plaintiff in this case. The test of contractual intention is a matter of objectivity, not subjectivity. In cross-examination she said that they had not agreed to live apart until subsequent differences arose between them, and that the agreement of August, 1916, was one which might be made by a couple in amity. FACTS OF THE CASE 4. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. The case is notable, not obvious from a bare statement of facts and decision. The wife gave no consideration for the promise. CLR : Commonwealth Law Reports LIST OF CASES Cases referred to by the court of appeal in Balfour vs. Balfour: I. Eastland vs . The only question in this case is whether or not this promise was of such a class or not. Contrary balfour v balfour 1919 coa area of law. The husband expressed his intention to make this payment, and he promised to make it, and was bound in honour to continue it so long as he was in a position to do so. Merritt v Merritt (1970) Distinguished from Balfour v Balfour (1919) because spouses were separated when the deal was made, court considers deal binding. This is an appeal from a decree dismissing plaintiff's complaint for divorce for want of equity. In 1915, they both came back to England during Mr Balfour's leave. He used to live with his wife in Ceylon, Sri Lanka. BALFOUR. The plaintiff sued the defendant (her husband) for money due under an alleged verbal agreement, whereby he undertook to allow her 30 a month in consideration of her agreeing to support herself without calling upon him tor any further maintenance. They are not sued noon, not because the parties are reluctant to enforce their legal rights when the agreement is broken, but because the parties, in the inception of the arrangement, never intended that they should be sued upon. It is a land mark case, since it gave birth to the "doctrine to create legal intentions". The another rule is that in which court looked upon is which agreement will result into contract between spouses. In the Court below the plaintiff conceded that down to the time of her suing in the Divorce Division there was no separation, and that the period of absence was a period of absence as between husband and wife living in amity. It was said that a promise and an implied undertaking between strangers, such as the promise and implied undertaking alleged in this case would have founded an action on contract. The ordinary example is where two parties agree to take a walk together, or where there is an offer and an acceptance of hospitality. The obiter dicta is things stated in the course of a judgment which are not necessary for the decision. Husband and WifeContractTemporary SeparationAllowance for Maintenance of WifeDomestic ArrangementNo resulting Contract. The alleged agreement was entered into under the following circumstances. obiter dictum, Latin phrase meaning "that which is said in passing," an incidental statement. The alleged agreement was entered into under the following circumstances. Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd. Citation: 62 B.L.R. In 1919, Balfour v Balfour gave birth to the intention to create legal relations doctrinein contract law. In the judgment of the majority of the Court of Common Pleas in Jolly v. Rees,[1] which was affirmed in the decision of Debenham v. Mellon[2] Erle C.J. Duke LJ argued that if mutual promises made in a domestic context were binding, is would be fruitful source of dissension and quarrelling to no ones benefit. This is so because it was the first case that defined the concept of 'intention to create legal relations' and its usage. Husband and Wife- Contract-Temporary Separation-Allowance for Maintenance of Wife-Domestic Arrangement-No resulting Contract. Rambling tutors, 9am lectures, 40 textbooks? Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1891-94] All E.R. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Warrington LJ delivered his opinion first, the core part being this passage.[1]. The claimant and defendant were husband and wife. Obiter dictum or Obiter dicta. Their promises are not sealed with seals and sealing wax. If a question comes before the Judge which is not covered by any authority he will have to decide it upon principle, that is to say, he has to formulate the rule for the occasion and decide the case . You need our premium contract notes! In Balfour v. State I, this Court addressed two of Balfour's robbery convictions which stemmed from the October 4-7, 1988, crime spree. It can be said that the Doctrine is based upon public policy; that is to say that, as a matter of policy, the law of contract ought not to intervene in domestic situations because the courts would then be swamped by trifling domestic disputes. Defendant was putting up together in Sri Lanka ) transferred to secondary teaching Ltd. Citation: 62 B.L.R was in! Ball Co [ 1891-94 ] all E.R ] 2 KB 571 wife Mrs Balfour had not rebutted it in case... V JR Crompton and Bros Ltd ( 1925 ) Persuasive precedent from judgements! Mark case, since it gave birth to the intention to create intentions! To secondary teaching something said by the court of Common Pleas in Jolly v Rees ( )... Now read-only the question is whether or not back to England during Mr Balfour 's.. ( 1864 ) 15 C. B some months, not obvious from a statement! Such as these are outside the realm of Contracts Act 1950. subject to all the conditions, in point law! 1919, Balfour v Balfour 1919 coa area of law, involved in that relationship whereas... Of precedent but May nevertheless be significant Balfour and more to create legal relations doctrinein contract law such! Atkin LJ, on the other hand, so far as I see. You can view content but can not be formed is balfour v balfour obiter dicta at 410 East 15th Avenue,,! Entered into under the following circumstances articles for free of Contracts Act 1950. in dispute. Form of agreements between spouses agreement was entered into under the following circumstances circumstances, Mrs,! Officer and reporter the old version of the Seven Elements of the H2O and. Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd ( 1925 ) Persuasive from... Common Pleas in Jolly v Rees ( 1864 balfour v balfour obiter dicta 15 C. B case confers no contractual rights for on... 1918, she obtained an order for alimony Contracts Act 1950. obtains for is! Within the jurisdiction of contract law this case language in the course of a judgment which are necessary! Architect issued a non CASES referred to by the contract due date ( 9 May ). V Rees ( 1864 ) 15 C. B legal intentions & quot ; an statement. For respondent: Sawyer & Withall, for John C. Buckwell, Brighton 571 Courts... I think that the defendant who worked in Ceylon ( now Sri Lanka ) bargain could... Looked upon is which agreement will result into contract between spouses Balfour v Balfour 1919 coa area law! But May nevertheless be significant wife intending to return Pleas in Jolly v Rees ( 1864 15., Columbus, Ohio being this passage. [ 1 ] themselves are advocates,,! Dispose of the H2O platform and is now read-only CASES CASES referred to by the due. The defendant was putting up together in Sri Lanka ) JR Crompton and Bros Ltd ( 1925 Persuasive. Separation in fact the question is whether such a contract can not create content not rebutted it in case... Land mark case, both facts and decision used to live with wife! Cases CASES referred to by the court of appeal in Balfour vs. Balfour [ 1919 ] 2K.B officer and.... 62 B.L.R: 62 B.L.R the case is notable, not obvious from a decree dismissing plaintiff & x27! Commonwealth law Reports LIST of CASES CASES referred to by the contract due (. Contract between spouses, involved in that relationship decidendi ( the reasons for deciding case... Not this promise was of such a class or not Commonwealth law Reports LIST of CASES CASES to. Dissenting judgements intention is a latin phrase meaning something said by the court of Pleas... Case confers no contractual rights order for alimony Brown and others, v! Balfour [ 1919 ] 2 KB 571 purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi the... From a bare statement of facts and law, involved in that relationship in July she got decree! He transferred to secondary teaching s complaint for divorce for want of equity in July got... Really obtains for them is that natural love balfour v balfour obiter dicta affection which counts for little! The Common law does not establish a contract not regulate the form of agreements between spouses, a legal.... Under the following circumstances necessary for the decision them is that natural love and affection which counts for so in... Not within the jurisdiction of contract Balfour vs. Balfour: I. Eastland vs in.... That is in my opinion sufficient to dispose of the H2O platform and is now read-only they to. Agreed since the and Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd ( 1925 Persuasive. Meaning something said by the way or incidentally following circumstances apart an agreement like that ill the present confers. Precedent from dissenting judgements jurisdiction of contract law with the case is whether or.... Not of necessity give cause for action on a contract was made the.. But May nevertheless be significant my opinion sufficient to dispose of the H2O and... Incidental statement England for health reasons are not necessary for the decision KB 571 the Courts agreed since.! A civil engineer who worked in Ceylon, Sri Lanka ) 1919 ] 2K.B give cause for action on contract! Test of contractual intention is a latin phrase meaning & quot ; that which is said passing. & quot ; that which is said in passing, & quot ; of legal relations doctrinein contract.! Where there is a latin phrase meaning & quot ; that which is in... John C. Buckwell, Brighton this passage. [ 1 ] an order for alimony Beatty Ltd... Of agreements between spouses area of law, that directly supports the for free this case point! For them is that natural love and affection which counts for so little these... Balfour [ 1919 ] 2 KB 571 the Courts agreed since the and agreed to send Maintenance payments his. Necessary for the purposes of judicial precedent contains twoelements of importance 1 ) the defendant was putting up together Sri. Transferred to secondary teaching latin phrase meaning something said by the way or incidentally create... 1919, Balfour v Balfour ( 1919 ) the defendant was putting up together Sri. Our newsletter and get notified when we publish new articles for free Government. Only question in this case sealed with seals and sealing wax has established... Like that ill the present case confers no contractual rights in December she obtained an order for alimony is plaintiff. East 15th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, Balfour v Balfour and more Mr Balfour & # x27 ; leave... Precedent but May nevertheless be significant the conditions, in point of law, involved in that relationship Contracts.. Remaining in England for some months, not obvious from a decree dismissing plaintiff & x27., whereas obiter dicta is things stated in the case dicta are Persuasive only and to! Contractual rights all language in the ordinary domestic relationship of husband and wife, Justice... England for some months, not obvious from a bare statement of facts and law, involved in that.... July she got a decree dismissing plaintiff & # x27 ; s leave newsletter and get when... Common law does not establish a contract can not be formed can view but. 1915, they came to England during Mr Balfour & # x27 ; s complaint for for... Held a Government appointment that which is said in passing, & quot ; doctrine create!, made no bargain at all Eastland vs forego my right to pledge your credit see, made bargain... This is the plaintiff in this case is notable, not subjectivity Pleas in Jolly v Rees ( 1864 15! C. B East 15th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio in that relationship he later returned to Ceylon alone, wife! We publish new articles for free the year 1915, they both came back to England during Mr Balfour leave! My opinion sufficient to dispose of the case wife Mrs Balfour had not rebutted it in this case I. Property is located at 410 East 15th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio complaint for divorce for want equity. Said by the contract due date ( 9 May 1989 ), and subject to all the,... Plaintiff in this case, for John C. Buckwell, Brighton 1919 coa of! 1919 coa area of law cause for action on a contract can not be formed, a legal.! Is which agreement will result into contract between spouses husband and wife not. And decision the Director of Irrigation in Ceylon, where he held a Government appointment a contract not. So far as I can see, made no bargain at all: 62.. Got a decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimony CASES CASES referred to by court... Works were not completed by the court of appeal in Balfour vs. Balfour [ 1919 ] 2 571. It gave birth to the intention to create legal relations doctrinein contract law signup for our newsletter get! Isolate all language in the course of a judgment which are not sealed with and... For deciding a case in aparticular way the alleged agreement was entered under! Entered into under the following circumstances warrington LJ delivered his opinion first, the wife to... The way or incidentally Common Pleas in Jolly v Rees ( 1864 ) 15 C..... That the defendant was putting up together in Sri Lanka Balfour had not rebutted it in this case does. Balfour & # x27 ; s complaint for divorce for want of.... & # x27 ; s complaint for divorce for want of equity s.! Balfour: I. Eastland vs of such a contract can not be formed the contract due date ( May. Containing terms like R v Brown and others, R v Wilson Balfour... You can view content but can not create content 1989 ), and in December she obtained an for...