You might argue later that the clear intention was to not form a legally binding contract; that you were merely accepting the general terms, for the specifics t

You might argue later that the clear intention was to not form a legally binding contract; that you were merely accepting the general terms, for the specifics to be agreed on later, and still had the option to refuse to go ahead at that point. On the other hand, you might argue later that you did intend it to be legally binding. Both arguments would be valid and your intent and what a reasonable man would assume would have to be decided on later by a court. pg's article reads to me as if the intention is for it to not be legally binding, when he says "The actual transaction comes later, when documents are signed and money changes hands." The existence of this article might change the view of the courts. So to avoid doubt later, you should make it absolutely clear what you intend. You can form a contract with a handshake if you intend to, as it has been pointed out. But only if you intended it. So why not save yourself some future legal expenses by making it clear what you both intend? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_to_be_legally_bound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_to_be_legally_bound