The general presumption (ITCLR) may be "rebutted", but for this to occur there must be clear evidence. This can be seen in the case of "Merritt v Merritt". In this case there was a married couple who had separated, and the wife had a written agreement which stated he'd pay her maintenance. It was held there was ITCLR, because the written agreement reflected this as the wife had a "reliance" on the payments. In the later case of "Simpkins v Pays". In this case a lodger, grandmother and granddaughter entered a newspaper competition and promised to share the winnings if they won. It was held that the winnings should be shared because the presumption doesn't apply as they all entered the competition, so there was an "expectation" it would have been shared. Another case to illustrate this, can be seen in the case of "Parker v Clark". In this case there were two elderly couples, who made very clear and detailed arrangements about who who'd pay what bills and what would happen to the property after they died. It was held that there was ITCLR, particularly in view of the Parker's taking a "drastic and irrevocable step" of selling their own home as the agreement contained very detailed terms and the Parkers relied on the agreement. Also, in the case of "Albert v MIB", a docker was killed in a road collision on his way to work, the work colleague had given lifts to the docker for 8 years. It was held that the lifts were given to different people over a period of time, therefore, there was ITCLR.
AO2: The cases represent with clear evidence, rebuttals can occur. The cases are decided on their facts, can create uncertainty, but fair based on promises. The judgements (in these 4 cases) represent both parties intentions at the time they made the agreement. The law in this category has developed to meet social changes and time.