conversation with plaintiff said he would give E 100 to anyone who marries his daughter with his consent. Plaintiff fulfilled this condition but defendant refused to pay him E 100. He sued. The court held that is not reasonable that the defendant should be bound by general words spoken to excite suitors. This decision was reached based on the fact that an intention to enter in to legal relations was not present. This not all agreements are binding because in some cases there is the absence of an intention to create legal relations. Also in determing whether or not such intention exists, the courts have often conveniently classified agreement into the three categories namely: 1. Social and domestic agreement 2. Commercial agreement 3. Collective Agreements Social and Domestic Agreement It is very obvious that most social and domestic agreement do not amount to binding contracts. This is because most times it is clear from the nature of such agreement that there was no intention to enter into a binding contract. For instance, if B said to A is hostel mate that, help me fetch water, I will give you plate of rice this is “Prima Facie” not contract that is capable enforceable in the eyes of the law. Similarly, agreement between husband and wife are mostly to be devoid of any contractual intention. In the case of Balfour v. Balfour (1919) 2 KB 577. In the case, the defendant came to England (on doctor’s advice) while promising to pay her £30 a month for the duration of her stay there. He defaulted in payment of the amount. She sued. Her action failed on the ground that the parties had no intention of creating a legally binding agreement. In Merit v. Merit (1970) WIR 211, it was shown that some agreement husband and wife can from time to time produce legally