Although many sources consider “social and domestic agreements” as a single class, it is preferable to consider “family agreements” as a separate class from “social agreements”, the latter not asserting a presumption and only applying to the objective test. The Tribunal decided that it could not take legal action against the promised maintenance payments, since it was, inter alia, a purely national agreement which it wished to make legally binding. A domestic agreement is an agreement between two people, usually in a family relationship, that defines their rights and duties. However, unlike normal contractual relations, the internal affairs of the treaty assume that there was no intention to create a legally binding agreement and that courts are often reluctant to enforce it. In civil systems, the notion of intent to establish legal relations[d] is closely related to the “theory of will” of treaties, as represented by the German jurist Friedrich Carl von Savigny in his current nineteenth-century Roman law system.  In the nineteenth century, an important concept was that contracts were based on a meeting of minds between two or more parties and that their mutual consent to a company or their intention to enter into a contract was of the utmost importance. While it is generally true that courts want to uphold the intentions of the parties, courts moved to a more objective interpretative position during the second half of the nineteenth century, with the focus on how the parties had expressed their consent to an external agreement. . . .