However, it is equally clear that we do not expect our national rules to be legally binding, with the prospect of legal proceedings in the event of failure. I don`t expect my children to sue me if I pay their pocket money too late, if a friend doesn`t show up and gives me a lift to a place for a night out in their car, I`ll think again that I`m not entitled to damages. In these situations, the law assumes that there is no intention to create legal relationships. The willingness of an innocent party to go to court to enforce a broken agreement should not be considered conclusive as to the intention to establish legal relations. There are many minor trade agreements for which the parties are unlikely to feel that it would be helpful to have the courts fix an offence. However, the parties clearly intend to create binding commitments. Moreover, even in the case of large commercial transactions, the parties often prefer to settle disputes in a manner that does not involve the use of lawyers. This does not mean that they do not intend to make their agreements legally binding. It is presumed that family agreements do not create legal relationships unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The courts oppose agreements that, for political reasons, should not be legally applicable.
 Companies are expected to know how to protect their own interests, and an integral part of that is an understanding of what a legally valid and enforceable trade agreement is. Since these types of agreements are only concluded between the commercial parties, they use clear language rather than legal jargon when preparing the agreement. Commercial transactions confirm a strong presumption of a valid contract: these agreements, in which the parties act as if they were foreigners, are considered binding. However, the “honour clauses” in the “gentlemen`s agreements” are recognized as an honest intention to create legal relations, as in the Jones/Vernons pools (where the clause “This agreement is binding only in honour” was effective). You have to be careful not to be able to write a clause to try to exclude the jurisdiction of a court, because the clause is null and void, as in Baker/Jones.  If a contract has both an “honour clause” and a clause that attempts to exclude the jurisdiction of a court (as in Rose – Frank v Crompton) , the court may apply the blue pencil rule that excludes the insulting party. The court will then recognize the rest, if it still makes sense, and will remain in agreement with the parties` negotiations. The insulting clause was that the law will not impose a contract if there is no intention to create legal relations. Everyone expects that some will have legal rights if the goods purchased turn out to be defective or if the services ordered are not provided. The law assumes that these contracts are legally binding. This is the case in situations where the law considers legal relations to be necessary, known as trade agreements. In Simpkins v Pays, an informal agreement between a grandmother, granddaughter and tenant on the sharing of the benefits of competition was binding.
Sellers J considered, in applying the objective test, that the facts demonstrated “reciprocity” between the parties, adding that the same principles apply when one third of the agreement exists, with the family. In Simpkins v Pays (1955), the applicant – a tenant – resided together and regularly participated in a selection process in which the list of eight objects was required in order of merit. Each woman made a list, and all three entries were filed on a form in the accused`s name. They had agreed that if one of them won, they would split the winnings among themselves. When one of the lines paid to the defendant won, the plaintiff filed a complaint to recover a third party from her. There, Richter found that there was a mandatory contract despite the family connection, since the tenant was also part of the contract. The court stated that the complainant did not