they got separated. The husband did not fulfill his promise, the wife sued her husband for unpaid allowance after both of them had separated. It was held that the arrangement was purely a domestic agreement and that the parties did not intend to create any binding legal relations. However, in Merrit v. Merrit (1970) 2 AER 760 where a husband deserted his wife and agreed to pay her allowance per month and also transferred the title of the house to her name but failed to keep the promise, the Court of Appeal held that the promises were intended to have legal effects. As for commercial agreements, in Jones v. Venron’s Pools Ltd (1938) 4 UILR 131 the plaintiff played pools and won. The coupon contained a clause which stated the “the transaction should not give rise to any legal relationship”… or be legally enforceable… but binding in honour only. Plaintiff sued the company to claim his winnings. It was held that the exclusion clause on the coupon was a limitation to any successful legal action. See also Atu v. Face to Face Pools Ltd (1974) 4 UILR. 131. Similarity, in Amadi v. Pools House Group and Nigeria Pools Co (1966) 2 All NLR 532, the plaintiff staked pools upon which coupon it was written that the relationship will be “binding in honour only” and that it shall not give rise to any legal relationship nor be the subject of litigation. The Court held that from the circumstances, the contract, though of a commercial nature was not intended to be legally binding. IF A and B agrees to enter into a carton to eat together, a promising to pay for the soft drinks and B promising to pay for the rice and chicken bills, there is a bargain, (agreement plus consideration) but legal obligation are not created. In Weekes v. Tybald (1605) Noy. 11. In the case, defendant in a