Jones v Vernons’ Pools Ltd, (1938) 2 All ER 626
Intention to create legal relations in the formation of contracts.
Facts
Mr. Jones filled in two winning entries on coupons for a sales promotion and sent it to Vernon Pools. The coupons contained the words of “binding in honour only” and that the entry of the coupon “shall not give rise to any legal relations.” The company claimed to only have received one of the coupons and not the other. However, Mr. Jones claimed that the coupon entry was a contractually binding arrangement and that he was entitled to the prize money. The primary question arose as to whether the coupons legally-bound the company to pay Mr. Jones the winning prize money.
Issues
The question arose as to whether the coupons created a legally-binding contract between the parties, pursuant to which the football pools company intended to be legally bound to pay the prize money.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that the existence of the terms “binding in honour only” and that the entry of the coupons “shall not give rise to any legal relations” on the coupons themselves demonstrated that the parties did not have the intention to be legally bound. The express provision was held to have the effect of expressly precluding and preventing the existence of a legally binding arrangement. This rebutted the presumption that the coupons would be binding at law. On this basis, Court held that the agreement was an agreement in “honour” and not a contract creating legal relations between the parties. Thus, Mr. Jones’ claim for the prize money was not an enforceable legal contract, and his claim was dismissed.
Word Count: 263
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Jones v Vernons’ Pools Ltd [1938] 2 All ER 626 is an established authority on intention to create legal relations, and its principles continue to be recognised in English contract law. The rule that express “honour only” clauses can rebut the presumption of contractual intention remains good law, as confirmed in later authorities including Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 and Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1925] AC 445, with which this case is consistent. There have been no statutory or judicial developments that undermine the principles described. Students should note that the broader doctrine of intention to create legal relations has been further developed in subsequent case law, and this case should be read alongside that wider body of authority.
