Intention is a key factor in establishing a legal connection. So, first and foremost, we must comprehend the concepts of intention and legal connection before moving on to the elements of legal relationship. Intention occurs when a person intends to engage in a particular behaviour. (2) A person has intention in relation to a situation if he or she believes it exists or will exist. A legal relationship is a legal link between two or more people or entities. It is also sometimes referred to as a jural connection, notably in Indian law. A legal connection can exist between two people or between an individual and the government.

Several legal systems across the globe view "intention to form legal relations" as a necessary component of every legally enforceable contract. The article maintains that if a state utilizes "Consideration" as the principal criteria for demonstrating the formation of a legally enforceable contract, such a criterion is not essential nor beneficial. According to the text, "consideration" is an indicator of such purpose. In common law nations, it should not be necessary to prove that the parties had the "intention to create a legal relation," because "consideration" should suffice to demonstrate their intents.

As a logical corollary, the necessity to establish such 'intention' can be justified in nations where 'consideration' is not required to form a legitimate and legally enforceable contract. While dealing with the suggested postulations, the article also discusses the difference in presumption about such purpose when dealing with contractual connections that form in a home setting as opposed to those that arise in a commercial one.

Introduction
Agreements section 2(e)
"All contracts are agreements but all agreements are not contracts.' With the help of the Venn diagram, we can figure out what this line means. The inner circle shows that contracts are made up of promises that the law can enforce. You can see the deals that are not contracts in the broader circle. Laws can't be used to carry out deals made in the grey area. These are what we call "void agreements."

A bargain is meaningless if people do not grasp it.

It's a little piece of paper that creates a legally enforceable contract.

People create bargains when they commit to accomplish something that is essential to them on a social, moral, or religious basis. A contract is a written agreement between two persons stating who has what rights and who must do what. A contract is a legally binding agreement," says Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act.[1]

Offer and Acceptance
An agreement is created when both parties freely opt to contribute something of value to the other in return for something else of value. This type of exchange is known as barter. For anything to be lawful, all persons involved must meet the conditions listed in the contract.[2] Only then can the scenario be deemed legitimate. If there is no provision for egalitarian relations, there is no chance of achieving a legally binding agreement, then there is no use in even attempting.

Legal Relationship
For there to be a genuine relationship, both sides must be able to recognize one another. This is a necessity for any communication. If both parties think they are responsible for the loss, the one that violated the contract must pay for it. Both parties may feel responsibility for ensuring the arrangement is followed. Group and family agreements are ineffective since they are unauthorized and cannot be confirmed. Because of preparations. The preparations guarantee that this impact occurs. Various commercial parties are negotiating the terms of a proposed corporate transaction.

Offer:
Section 2(a) defines an offer as any activity that has the potential to benefit both parties. It is not enough for the offer to be made for the proper purpose for it to be legally binding once accepted. Once the offer is approved in its whole, the transaction becomes a legally enforceable written contract. In this situation, there are two main players: the individual who makes the offer and the person who takes advantage of it. According to subsection (c) of section 2 of the Contract Act, the individual who receives the offer is considered to be the recipient of the goods or services.[3]

Offer And Acceptance
When someone notifies another person that they are or are not prepared to act, they are offering a suggestion. The individual may be referred to as the offeror, promisor, or promisee, depending on the language chosen to characterize their connection.

What constitutes a decent bargain are the following:

1. Offer must be of creating legal relations:
   Offer must not be a casual statement. certain forms of agreements do not reach the status of a contract.

Family or domestic relations:
No one thinks that there are any good general rules about family or home life. If it doesn't, you can use the exception to show that the assumption is wrong.

"In order for a contract to be legal, both parties must sign it with the purpose of making a formal deal. There can't be a deal without it. In the UK[4], an agreement backed by something of value is not legal unless both sides agree to be legally bound by it. The terms of most contracts are clear. In other cases, the fact that the people involved work together shows that the law is always the fair way to look at the situation. Everyone agrees on that in social and family contracts, but in business contracts, we have to show it. Most people didn't think this was a good idea before 1919.

People make contracts most of the time to make ties that are hard to break. Saying that someone wants to sign a contract that is legally binding is proof that they want to do so. You can't be made to do what you don't want to do, so there are no written promises. Firms that want to make contracts are already ahead of the game, because contracts have to be made before cases can happen. It's important that both sides want to reach a deal.

Purpose can be looked at from many different angles. Make sure you know what's going on if you want a good lawyer.

Respecting people's private lives is one of the most important rules of the court. Mr. Chen thinks he has achieved what he calls "freedom from obligation." People may have a more difficult time getting to know one another if judges "sanction" them. Adams and Brown-sword may have discussed this as one of the hazards. (2011). "Courts don't normally look at proof of what people desire, but when they say "purpose," they nearly invariably imply an individual aim. Most likely, the judges want to know what happened from a scientific perspective. Guessed conclusions reveal more about the individuals who read them than the actual findings.

It means nothing unless it was intended to be a contract. For a transaction to be legally binding, one party must have a documented right. The agreement is worthless since it was never intended to be legally binding. Because the contract was struck fast, the law may not take it seriously. If both parties could reach an agreement, they would not have to go to court. This makes it difficult for the parties to sign a contract, even if they do not wish to. Both sides of this transaction include risks, which is detrimental to the firm. It makes it difficult for everyone who is expected to get money to determine who owes it.

People in a contract have the right to make allegations even if they do not believe them.

Even if you don't want to, you must maintain your promise if you make a bargain. We have nothing to be pleased about. If the other person isn't motivated or agrees to the arrangement, you may be unable to keep your part of the bargain. How intriguing! Those who need to locate me may have difficulties. People utilize these contracts for a variety of purposes, including social, commercial, and personal. Just as you need to make corporate transactions to create company ties, you must also make personal bargains to build family relationships.

Family and Social Agreements:
No one believes that parties and other people want to get married for business reasons. What they say is worthless, just like what husbands, wives, and parents say. There are many different kinds of trades, but for them to work, both sides must know what they're agreeing to. Even though the facts aren't clear, it seems like neither side wanted to sign a signed contract. "Privacy rules for its people are thought about a lot. And he made up a way of thinking about freedom that he called "freedom from agreement."[5]

The author says that both John Adams and Brown-sword say that "sanctioning" is bad for getting along with other people. Glaskin agrees. (1987)."However, when a court looks at what the parties wanted, they almost never say what they wanted. The judges like projects that have clear plans for how they will work. They'd like to look at it. We can learn a lot about the group from the ideas that come up."

Weeks v Tybald (1605) Noy 11
"A so-called marriage contract with vague language doesn't bind anyone."

The defendant was the father of a woman who the plaintiff tried to "woo" so that they could get married.[6]

The plaintiff requested that the defendant maintain a commitment he allegedly made to marry the plaintiff's daughter to the defendant's daughter. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant contacted the plaintiff's father and obtained permission from him to allow the plaintiff to appear in court. The plaintiff requested that the defendant honor a commitment to marry the plaintiff's daughter, which the plaintiff claimed the defendant made.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant approached the plaintiff's father and obtained permission for the plaintiff to visit the defendant's home and "woo" the defendant's daughter. The court said that the petitioner and the offender's daughter had a "communication of marriage." Also, the defendant is said to have said over and over again at the alleged meeting at his house that he would give the plaintiff 100l and let the plaintiff marry his daughter.

Held: The Court of King's Bench ruled that the individual who heard the remarks in question had not been cautioned or informed. As a result, the court ruled that it was unfair for the defendant to be bound by ambiguous comments "spoken to anger the defendant." So, the accuser's case was dismissed. The case demonstrates why an obviously overstated claim, such as the defendant's desire for money, might derail a clear strategy to begin a formal partnership. A savvy individual should be able to recognize when a statement is a legally enforceable commitment.

Balfour v Balfour [7]
Mr. Balfour worked for the government as Ceylon's Irrigation Director. He was a construction engineer in what is now Sri Lanka. Mrs. Balfour came to reside with him. He planned to live there. They accompanied Mr. Balfour when he returned to England in 1915. In contrast, Mrs. Balfour suffers from gout. Her doctor advised her not to go into the woods since it was unsafe for her to be there. Mr. Balfour's ship was due to sail, so he promised her �30 every month until she could return to Ceylon. Mr. Balfour advised them to keep their distance after their breakup. She sued him in March 1918 for �30 per month. During July, she was given a nisi order, and in December, she was told to eat.

Even though everyone on the Court of Appeal had their own reasons, they all agreed that there was no deal that could be made.

Warrington LJ was the first person to speak, and this was the most important thing he said. "When you think about it, the situation is really dumb, because if we say there was a contract, we would have to say that whenever a wife makes a promise to her husband at his request, that is a promise that can be enforced in court. I can only say that we don't have anything like that. They never wanted to agree to something that the government could force them to do. The husband promised to pay this bill, and he did. He had to keep making this payment as long as he could out of respect. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, the wife didn't do anything. That should be the end of the case, I think."[8]

Duke LJ then gave his opinion:
"In the lower court, the plaintiff agreed that there had been no separation until she sued in the Divorce Division, and that the period of absence was a period of absence between a husband and wife who were still living together." When a plan is made to end a relationship, both people need to think about it.

Because of this, the judge in Eastland v. Burchell (3 QBD 432)[9] said that the choice to split up was the most important thing. But in this case, there was no deal at all. They had to follow all the rules that come with being married. It's not true that the promises a husband and wife make to each other have to be treated like contracts. For a relationship to work, there should be more than just promises on both sides. Also, think about how they live with each other. Before either side can sign a contract based on these vows, the responsibilities that came with that relationship must change.

Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211 [10]
Husband agrees to transfer home to wife on separation; whether intention to create legal relations is there?

Facts
Mr. and Mrs. Merritt got married in 1941. They kept the same name for their house after they got married. In 1966, Mr. Merritt left home to be with a different woman. On the other hand, Mr. Merritt has chosen to give Mrs. Merritt �40 every month. At Mrs. Merritt's request, he signed a deal that said he would move the house into her name only if she paid the rest of the bill. Ms. Merritt was able to pay off the debt and get a letter from the bank saying that the house was now hers. But Mr. Merritt doesn't agree with what was said in court.

Issues: "The question in the case was whether or not Mr. Merritt's promise, which he kept even though the couple was married legally, was legally binding."

Rule: "Lord Denning MR (the judge) says you should look at the case and ask the party if they think their deal is legal. So, it was clear from the facts of the case that neither side agreed on anything. This shows that they wanted their deal to be binding in the eyes of the law.

Analysis
Merritt said that the deal was between a husband and wife and that no effort was made to make it legal. He also said that no deal was made that was binding on the law. He also said that Mrs. Merritt hadn't done what she said she would and that the contract wasn't clear enough for the court to back it up. Mrs. Merritt said it was wrong to think that because they were getting a divorce, they didn't want legal ties. She said that her plan had always been to set up formal relationships. She paid for everything at home and stopped making hypothecary payments.

Conclusion
The judge did not agree with Mr. Merritt's case. It was said that it is not okay to just assume that the parties don't want a legal relationship when they are breaking up. The plan was good enough to be put into action, and Mr. Merritt's promise to pay off the bill was carefully examined. Ms. Merritt had every right to move into a place for people who were already married.

Conclusion as a whole:
The goal of a contract is to build a strong bond, which is one of the most important parts. The first thing you need to know when you want to make a deal is what your goals are. This is how you can tell whether or not the deal will work.

McGregor vs McGregor [11]
A husband and wife agreed that they would stop making assault claims against each other if the husband gave the wife an allowance and the wife didn't use her husband's credit. Held, the agreement had to be kept because it was a contract."

Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 [12]
Whether or not the goal is to make a binding tie, the girl's mother agrees to take care of her. Facts: The case was started by the person being sued's mother. The client and the criminal came to an agreement that would end the case. The deal said that the suspect would leave her job in the United States, move to England with her family, and study for the bar exam there. The person who asked will give her �42 every month as payment. Her mother helped pay for the girl to go to school. Later, the person who started the case decided to give the person who was being sued a place to live.

One thing that brought them together was that the suspect hadn't ended her studies in five years. Those who wanted to buy the building were serious. The defendant said that if she stayed and worked for �42 a month, she could stay. She said she and her mother had made a deal that couldn't be broken. Since there was no contract, the person who brought the case said she had never wanted to be formally bound by the deal.The girl was allowed to stay at home, but the mother tried to change the decision.

The daughter said that the deal she and her mother had made was legal, so she should be able to stay in the house. She said she wanted to be a lawyer and had thought about how studying for the bar could help her mother. The mother said that the deal was not legal, so she was able to get the land back. Even if the contract was legal, the terms were not clear enough for the court to support them.

The girl's mother filed an appeal after the judge said the girl could keep going.

The mother got what she wanted after her appeal was accepted. People think that family plans are based on religion, love, and family ties, and that no one wants to make written contracts that judges can uphold. This assumption can be thrown out, but the fact that the mother and daughter couldn't come to a written understanding showed that they didn't have that goal and that the daughter didn't back her mother's house case.

Business Arrangements:
Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd, [1925] AC 445 [13]
In 1913, an American company and a German company decided to work with the same firm to sell paper products in the United States. Part of the written deal says that it is not public and does not have to be followed. It also says that it is not a "honorable commitment" between business partners. The US company then sent the UK company paper orders, which were accepted.

Because it didn't like how Rose and Frank Co. did business, the British company J.R. Crompton pulled out of the deal before the orders were carried out. It ended the agency agreement and refused to send the goods, saying that the agreement from 1913 was not legally binding and that the orders did not create any legal duties. Rose and Frank Co. sued them because they broke the rules. J.R. Crompton's wish came true when they won in court.

Scrutton, who wrote for the majority, said that even though most people think a contract is for business, there is a word in this case that says the parties don't want to be bound by the written agreement. In contract law, what matters is what each side wants from the deal. Here, we'll talk about these goals. Since neither side agreed to be bound to the other, there is no contract.

Atkin said that he didn't agree with the deal because it wasn't a legally binding contract. But he said that the orders and answers of the parties were sales contracts that could be carried out.

Held: First, when it came to the 1913 agreement, the Court gave a lot of weight to the part of the agreement that said it should be a "honorable undertaking" alone to show that the parties did not want the agreement to be a legally binding contract. The Court made it clear that a claim that a contract's words can't be used to limit its legal force can only be used when there is no doubt about the contract's legal force.

In this case, the paper and the events were not meant to give any formal interest, so the clause that says the deal can't be properly carried out will be used. Second, the Court said that even if orders and acceptances are not written down, they are still legally binding. Even if an agency deal doesn't have a clear legal plan, legal deals can still be made. Orders were like offers and acceptances, which are normal parts of doing business.

Conclusion
To sum up, the idea that "all agreements are contracts but not all agreements are contracts" emphasizes the difference between an agreement and a contract that has legal force behind it. A written agreement that establishes duties and is enforceable by law is called a contract between two parties. A contract has to include an offer, acceptance, consideration, legal ability, and a legitimate goal in order to be enforceable. An agreement could be deemed null and invalid or unenforceable in the absence of these components.

This distinction is demonstrated by the case of "Balfour v. Balfour," in which a promise made by spouses was deemed not to be a legally enforceable agreement. In a similar vein, "Merritt v. Merritt" shows that a pledge to transfer property must satisfy specific legal standards in order to be enforceable, even in a married relationship.

Parties may explicitly state in commercial situations that their agreement is not legally enforceable, as demonstrated in "Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd," prohibiting the establishment of a contract. Courts uphold these kinds of clauses, highlighting how crucial it is for commercial agreements to be clearly understood and intended.

In general, the contrast between agreements and contracts emphasizes how important it is for parties to thoroughly analyze their intentions and make sure that all requirements are met in order for a contract to be upheld in court.

Bibliography:

• Corbin A, 'Offer And Acceptance, And Some Of The Resulting Legal Relations' (1917) 26 The Yale Law Journal
• Know L, 'Law Of Contracts: Everything You Need To Know' (UpCounsel, 2021), accessed 20 April 2021
• 'Specific Performance Of Contract: Contract Unenforcible' (1918) 16 Michigan Law Review
• Corbin A, 'Offer And Acceptance, And Some Of The Resulting Legal Relations' (1917) 26 The Yale Law Journal

End-Notes:

1. Law Know, 'Law Of Contracts: Everything You Need To Know' (UpCounsel,) accessed 18 April 2021.
2. Arthur L. Corbin, 'Offer And Acceptance, And Some Of The Resulting Legal Relations' (1917) 26 The Yale Law Journal.
3. Law Know, 'Law Of Contracts: Everything You Need To Know' (UpCounsel,) accessed 18 April 2021.
4. Arthur L. Corbin, 'Offer And Acceptance, And Some Of The Resulting Legal Relations' (1917) 26 The Yale Law Journal.
5. Arthur L. Corbin, 'Offer And Acceptance, And Some Of The Resulting Legal Relations' (1917) 26 The Yale Law Journal.
6. Weeks v Tybald,1605
7. Balfour v Balfour, 1915
8. Prince Saprai, 'Balfour v Balfour and the Separation of Contract and Promise' (2017) 37 Legal Stud 468
9. Law Know, 'Law Of Contracts: Everything You Need To Know' (UpCounsel,) accessed 18 April 2021.
10. Merritt v Merritt ,1970
11. McGregor vs McGregor, 1967
12. Jones v Padavatton ,1969
13. Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd, 1925