Source: p 48 , The Law of Contract, 5 ed (2012), by O’Sullivan and Hilliard
For example, if my (happily married) wife and I sit down to carefully decide who should pick up the kids from school on which day, and I say that I will do it on Mondays and Tuesdays if she does it on the other weekdays, it does not appear to my wife that I intend our arrangement to impose legal obligations upon either of us. It is not a situation in which we believe that there will be further negotiations following which we enter into a legally binding arrangement; we never intend there to be a contract at all.
Since 'intend' can be transitive, why there? Why not simply write 'we never intend a contract at all'? My Googling produced p 214, Oxford Modern English Grammar, by Bas Aarts which I don't understand:
The grammaticality of the following example  also shows that the postverbal NP position cannot be filled by an argument of INTEND.
38 I certainly intend there to be an increase in ranger and warden ser- vices to ensure that responsibities are exercised by those who have the new right.
As noted before, there (along with dummy it) is meaningless, and cannot therefore be a semantic argument of the verb that precedes it.