Talk:Intention to create legal relations

Move to common name?
In my experience this is much more commonly referred to as the "intent to be bound". Google seems to agree, claiming 79.4k results for "intention to create legal relations" and 3.05M for "intent to be bound". My perception could be warped by my US background, but Google doesn't think so: restricting the search to .uk gives 149k for "intent to be bound" and just 4.9k for "intention to create legal relations". I get similar results for .ca, .au, and .nz. Is there any reason this page should not be moved to intent to be bound? -- Visviva (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Following up on myself, I note that I do get higher results for "intention to create legal relations" in BAILII (371 for "intention to create..." vs. 321 for "intent to be bound") and much higher results in AustLII (971 vs. just 79) (using a naive all-databases exact-phrase search in both cases). So perhaps this is, after all, a matter of national variation that should be left alone. -- Visviva (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Civil or domestic agreements are not an ‘intention to be legally binding.’
The rationale for this position is principally the floodgates argument, namely that the lower courts would be flooded with lawsuits if casual domestic agreements were held to have contractual status. The question worth asking is; doesn’t this imply an endorsement of injustice by the courts by not adjudicating over such cases. Yet still what should be done to correct this wrong? 41.216.73.23 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)