acceptance of every coupon, that it is intended and agreed that the conduct of the pools and everything done in connection there with and all arrangements relating there to shall not be attended by or give to any legal relation enforceable, or the subjected litigation, but all are binding in honour only”. In Amadi v. Pool House Group and Nigeria Co. (1966) 2 All NLR 254. Plaintiff stakes the sum of E1.16S in a football poll and claimed that on the basis of his correct entry he had won E50, 009.12S. The second defendant claimed that the plaintiff upon was never received even though they were their agent and disclaim liability in reliance on the honour clause above. The judge held that the “honour clause” operated to exclude any contractual liability. The rationale is given that by the nature of football agreement, if the pools companies were liable to defend themselves in court at the insistence of every stakeholder who though he had won, pandemonium would result pools business cannot be carried on for a day on terms of that kinds. The intention was to ensure that the relationship between the parties was to be that of “honour”, in other words, a create a legal relationship. Collective Agreements This is an agreement between a trade union and an employer regulating rates of pay and condition of work. It seems that at common law, there is a presumption that the parties do not intend to enter in to legal relation unless it is clearly established that the parties intended a binding contract. The general view is that such collective agreements were prima facie not intended to be legally binding as between trade union and employers. The position at common law rebutted by statute, thus, section 13 and 15 of wages Boards and industrial council Act 1973, provide that a