⇒ For a contract to be concluded, the parties must intend to establish legal relationships. The doctrine determines whether a court should consider that the parties to an agreement wish it to be legally enforceable and provides that an agreement is legally enforceable only if the parties believe that they intend to enter into a binding contract. 69 The Government has announced that the Industrial Relations Act, which will be published in 1970, provides that collective agreements may be made legally binding only by an explicit written provision of the agreement (In Place of Strife, cm. 3888, paragraph 46). It appears that no special rules are established for the interpretation and application of such agreements. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the parties are free to provide that their agreement is a contract, but that the ordinary courts do not have jurisdiction: cf. z.B. Czamikov v. Roth, Schmidt & Co.  2 K.B 478Google Scholar; and in general Halsbury, , Laws of England (3rd ed.), vol. 9, p.
352Google Scholar, and Leigh v. N.U.R.  2 W.L.R. 60, 65.Google Scholar However, if there is a clear intention to be bound by contract, the presumption is rebutted. In Merritt vs. Merritt, a separation agreement between insane spouses was applicable. In Beswick vs. Beswick, an uncle`s agreement to sell a coal supply business to his nephew was applicable. At Errington v Errington, a father`s promise to his son and daughter-in-law was that they could live (and ultimately own) a house if they replaced the balance of the mortgage, an enforceable unilateral contract. 49-273 (and Bowen L.J. at 266 and Lindley L.J. at 271).
This approach is also explicit in Licences Insurance Corp. and Guarantee Fund (Ltd.) v. Lawson (1896) 12 T.L.R. 501 (statements “during the ..