The language of 'intention to create legal relations' is, on one view of what the objective theory of contract entails, somewhat misleading though.
One view (which the court here seems to adopt: e.g. [37]) is that under the objective theory we are looking at what was going on the in the parties' minds as it would appear to a bystander. The other view is that we are just looking at the meaning of what the
parties have done.
If the latter view is right, it seems like we should be talking of 'agreement to create legal/contractual relations'.
From: William Swadling <william.swadling@law.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 10:00 PM
To: Dave Winterton <dave.winterton@gmail.com>; Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>
Cc: Obligations list <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: RE: ODG: Intention to Create Legal Relations
Indeed. When I teach unincorporated associations, I stress that not all have contractual relationships between members, so that the contract-holding theory wouldn't work in a case like Leahy v AG of NSW (order of nuns).
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Winterton <dave.winterton@gmail.com>
Sent: 22 May 2021 03:16
To: Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>
Cc: Obligations list <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: ODG: Intention to Create Legal Relations
Seems like an eminently sensible decision.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 22 May 2021, at 1:17 am, Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca> wrote:
>