It is considered that family agreements do not create legal relationships unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The courts will reject agreements that, for political reasons, should not be legally enforceable.  ⇒ Balfour vs. Balfour (1919) shows that a national agreement is generally not intended to establish legal relations (and therefore will not be contractual). Counterintuitive is the best way to know if the parties wanted to enter into a contract not to ask them, as this « subjective test » would give the villain a simple escape from responsibility. (He replied, « No! I didn`t intend to be bound. ») Instead, as in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, the court applies the « objective test » and asks whether the reasonable viewer believes, after considering all the circumstances of the case, that the parties wished to be held. [b] As the announcement (pictured) stated that the company had deposited « £1,000 at Alliance Bank to show sincerity in this case », the court decided that any objective viewer who read this would accept a contract intent. ⇒ For example, agreements between employers and unions are collective agreements.
In civil systems, the notion of intent to establish legal relations[d] is closely related to the « theory of will » of treaties, as represented by the German jurist Friedrich Carl von Savigny in his current nineteenth-century Roman law system.  In the nineteenth century, an important concept was that contracts were based on a meeting of minds between two or more parties and that their mutual consent to a company or their intention to enter into a contract was of the utmost importance. While it is generally true that courts want to uphold the intentions of the parties, courts moved to a more objective interpretative position during the second half of the nineteenth century, with an emphasis on how the parties had expressed their consent to an external agreement. .