There is a basic presumption that there is no ITCLR, but a party can successfully rebut so long as there is clear evidence, or the party may include a clause which states they don't intend to be bound such as a "binding honour only" clause or the "Honour-Pledge clause". A HP clause means parties bind each other in honour and not law. This can be applied in the case of "Jones v Vernons' Pools". In this case the claimant claimed he had 8 draws on the pools, but Vernon refused to pay as they said they'd never received it. It was held there was No ITCLR as the agreements should be binding in honour only and it was successfully rebutted. In the later case of "Rose and Frank v Crompton Brothers", there was a paper contract which had a honour pledge clause, that they'd carry out the sale of the paper with loyalty and co-operation, however, the defendants refused to send the paper before the orders were sent by terminating the agreement. It was held that the sole agency agreement wasn't binding owing to the inclusion of the honour pledge clause.
AO2: In this category, the emphasis on the presumption of there being a contract is very strict. As stated above very clear evidence is needed.