the following indented item is from an earlier ms. from mr farrow:

...The binding intentions principle also helps us to understand the void contract issue. If the principle is applied to an illegal gambling agreement it can be argued that the bettor can not have manifested an intention, in his jurisdiction, to acquire a binding legal obligation to pay, and hence could not have discharged such an obligation by paying. Nevertheless, it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances that the bettor manifested by his conduct an irrevocable (and lawful) intention to make a gift to his bookmaker, in a situation where he held a reasonable expectation that his bookmaker, if he were to stay in business, would make a reciprocal gift, at odds, should the bettor's horse come home....

back to the taxonomic part of the current discussion, the word 'gift' does uncomfortable double duty if applied in legal talk both to name the normal transaction of mr. fergus' basic intent definition, and also to characterize a transaction-affirming outcome for questioned exchange relationships, eg those involving bookie and better, or the even more uncongenial debtor-and-creditor