The rebuttable presumption is a burden of proof; but the charge can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. The civil standard of proof is „a balance of probabilities,“ while the standard of criminal proof is „beyond reasonable doubts.“ The guesswork varies depending on the rate. To that end, there are four types of agreements: normal trade agreements with the government are likely to be legally binding, as is the case with other types of trade agreements – but there may be political agreements for which this is not the case. The case of Australian Woollen Mills is a possible example (in this case, it was also found that the reflection was made). This is also what happened in the management of PNG v Leahy. As far as social agreements are concerned, there is no presumption and the case is decided exclusively in its case. The context in which the agreement was reached was that, although it was supposed to concern a domestic affair – the support of a woman by her husband – the idea that she should not be binding was refuted. Under contract law, the binding nature of an agreement requires the intention to establish legal relations between the parties. In order for an agreement to be legally binding and intend to create legal relations, the law has distinguished between two types of agreements: agreements concluded in the context of social and national relations and agreements concluded in a commercial environment.

The Court of Appeal ruled that their appeal should fail. Two members of the Tribunal focused their decision on the absence of any consideration on the part of the woman. Lord Atkin stressed, however, that these national rules, even if they are being considered, are clearly not legally binding by the parties. He used the example of the man who agreed to provide money for his wife in exchange for their „housekeeping and maintenance of the household and children.“ If it is a contract, each could sue the other for non-compliance with the promised commitment. The woman had failed to enter into a contract and had not done so. In the civil system, the concept of intent to create legal relations is closely linked to the „theory of the will“ of contracts, as developed by the German jurist Friedrich Carl von Savigny during the 19th century. [22] In the 19th century, the fact that contracts were based on a meeting of minds between two or more parties and that their mutual agreement on an agreement or their intention to enter into contracts was of the utmost importance. While it is generally true that the courts want to resist the intentions of the parties,[23] the courts in the second half of the 19th century moved to a more objective interpretation,[24] with an emphasis on how the parties agreed with the outside world.