Why call a Contract an &quot;Agreement&quot;?
<p><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/q/57710">In my personal contract</a>, just &quot;Agreement&quot; appears, never &quot;Contract&quot;. For another example, see p 62 in <em>Lessons for Baby Sharks: The Essential Guide to Thriving as a New Lawyer</em> (2016 2 ed.) by Grover E. Cleveland <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/grovercleveland/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">BA English (Washington University in St. Louis), JD Magna Cum Laude (Saint Louis University School of Law)</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TV6n.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TV6n.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>As you lawyers definitely know, Agreement ≠ Contract. An Agreement is merely one of five necessary conditions for forming a Contract.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A party who wishes to establish that a legally binding contract has been formed between
himself and another party must prove a number of matters. The first is that the parties
have reached agreement. This is usually done by demonstrating that one party has made an
offer that the other has accepted. The rules relating to offer and acceptance are discussed in
Chapter 3. Secondly, the agreement must be expressed in a form that is sufficiently certain for
the court to be able to enforce. The tests applied by the courts when deciding whether a term
has been expressed in a form that is too vague, incomplete, or uncertain to be enforced are</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>discussed in Chapter 4. Thirdly, the agreement must be supported by consideration (although
it is possible that effect may be given to a promise that is unsupported by consideration via an
estoppel). The doctrine of consideration and the role that estoppel can play in giving effect to
promises that are unsupported by consideration are discussed in Chapter 5. Fourthly, the law
may only recognize the validity of the agreement if it is entered into in a particular form (such
as writing). The significance of requirements of form has diminished in recent years but they
have not been entirely abolished. Requirements of form are discussed in Chapter 6. Finally [5],
the parties must have had an intention to create legal relations. This intention is presumed in
commercial transactions, but in the case of domestic and social agreements the law initially
presumes that the parties did not intend to be legally bound by their agreement. The doctrine
of intention to create legal relations is discussed in Chapter 7.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>McKendrick, <em>Contract Law Text, Cases, and Material</em>s 9th Edition, 2020, pp 17-8.</p>

<p>An agreement is not necessarily a contract, but a contract is always an agreement. As coffee is a drink, you can call it a drink.</p>

<h2>A contract is an agreement that is enforcable by law</h2>
<p>All contracts are agreements; not all agreements are contracts.</p>
<ul>
<li>An agreement between a construction company and a government to build 45km of motorway is also a contract. If the construction company fails to build it or the government fails to pay legal consequences will follow.</li>
<li>An agreement for you and I to meet for drinks after work is not a contract. If I stand you up, legal consequences will not follow (relationship consequences probably will).</li>
</ul>

contract-law