`Any collective agreement concluded after the beginning of this section shall ultimately be presumed not to have been regarded by the parties as a legally enforceable contract, unless the agreement: a contract is a legally binding agreement. Once an offer has been accepted, there is an agreement, but not necessarily a contract. The element that turns any agreement into a real treaty is “the intention to create legal relations”. It is necessary to demonstrate that the parties envisaged that the agreement would be subject to contract law. If evidence of intent is found, the agreement creates legal obligations that allow for the prosecution of any party who initiates an offence. For example, the winner of an amateur sports tournament usually cannot sue the tournament organizer if the prize is not paid. The reason for this is to promote voluntary social participation and preserve the informal atmosphere that surrounds these events. Where the parties explicitly state in their contract that they intend to establish legal relationships, the courts always maintain that agreement. As with any contract, the best way to ensure that the expression is recorded and cannot be challenged afterwards is through the use of a written agreement.
There are also other means: the use of witnesses or subsequent acts proving a prior intention in another contract. It is difficult to say anything else. Few plaintiffs in court successfully argued that their business agreement was invalid because the parties did not intend to create legal relationships. The policy of the law is always to enforce trade agreements, not to beat them for no good reason. The intention to create legal relationships”, otherwise an “intention to be legally bound”, is a doctrine used in contract law, particularly in English contract law and related common law jurisdictions. [a] The law will not impose a contract if there is no intention to create legal relationships. Everyone expects to have some legal rights when the purchased goods turn out to be defective or if the services ordered are not provided. The law assumes that the intention is for such contracts to be legally binding. This is the case in situations where the law considers that legal relationships called trade agreements are necessary.
The rebuttable presumption is based on a burden of proof; the charge may, however, be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. The standard of civil evidence is “a balance of probabilities,” while the criminal standard of proof is “above a reasonable doubt.” Different presumptions apply depending on the concordance class. To this end, there are four categories of agreements: a court generally recognizes the intention to create legal relationships when an agreement is reached between spouses at the end of their relationship. The circumstances are considered more commercial than in a relationship. As far as commercial transactions are concerned, there is a strong presumption of a valid contract: these agreements, in which the parties have conveyed themselves as foreigners, are considered binding. However, “honor clauses” in gentlemen`s agreements are recognized as a regulation of the intention to create legal relationships, as in the pools of Jones v Vernon (where the clause “This agreement is only honorific” was effective). Care must be taken not to formulate a clause in such a way as to try to exclude the jurisdiction of a court, because the clause is void, as in Baker v Jones.  If a contract contains both an “honor 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 breaks down the injuring part. . . .