Introduction: The essay/problem/dilemma involves the law on Intention to create legal relations (ITCLR). This is one of the 4 key elements to a binding contract, without it contracts wouldn't exist. The law is solely based on presumptions, which has the effect that the law can become uncertain and unpredictable, however it can create justice in individual cases. The law of intention is split into 2 distinct categories. They are Domestic and Commercial. The law on domestic arrangements states that there is no ITCLR. These are agreements made between husband and wife, parent and child. The basic approach can be seen in the leading case of "Balfour v Balfour". In this case a husband/wife entered an oral agreement, whereby the husband agreed to make regular payments to help his wife. The decision failed because it was only a clasue and the husband and wife were living in "amity" and they were happily married. In the later case of "Jones v Padavatton", a mother who was "very close" to her daughter promised to pay a maintenance allowance of $200. It was held that there was no ITCLR present and there was no dispute over the $200, therefore, the mother can possess the house as there was no contract. This presumption has been extended from relatives to friends. This has been seen in the case of "Buckpitt v Oates". In this case, both parties were male, 17 year old friends. One party suffered negligence on a journey to work and had to pay towards the petrol. It was held it was a "gentleman's agreement", and there was no ITCLR.This decision has been shadowed in the case of “Coward v MIB”. In this case Coward was killed whilst riding pillion on a motorcycle by a friend and work colleague on the way to work. Cowards widow wanted to claim compensation. The friend was negligent of the collision. It was held that there was no contract of hire or reward as it was a social and domestic agreement and … no ITCLR. The widow was … not entitled to compensation.