Hubbry Logo
Oral contractOral contractMain
Open search
Oral contract
Community hub
Oral contract
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Oral contract
Oral contract
Oral contract
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

An oral contract is a contract, the terms of which have been agreed by spoken communication. This is in contrast to a written contract, where the contract is a written document. There may be written, or other physical evidence, of an oral contract – for example where the parties write down what they have agreed – but the contract itself is not a written one.

In general, oral contracts are just as valid as written ones, but some jurisdictions either require a contract to be in writing in certain circumstances (for example where real property is being conveyed), or that a contract be evidenced in writing (although the contract itself may be oral). An example of the latter is the requirement that a contract of guarantee be evidenced in writing, which is found in the Statute of Frauds.

Similarly, the limitation period prescribed for an action may be shorter for an oral contract than it is for a written one.

The term verbal contract is sometimes used as a synonym for oral contract. However, since the term verbal could also mean just using words, not only spoken words, the term oral contract is recommended when maximum clarity is desired.

Enforcement

[edit]

Provided that an oral contract satisfies any requirements imposed by law, such a requirement that contracts for a specific type of transaction be in writing, it is legally enforceable.[1][2]

For example, in 1984, Getty Oil was sold to Pennzoil in a handshake deal, a lay term for an oral contract, which was binding under New York law. Texaco later made a higher offer, and the company was sold to Texaco. Pennzoil filed a lawsuit alleging tortious interference with the oral contract and, after prevailing in Pennzoil, Co. v. Texaco, Inc., was awarded $11.1 billion in damages, later reduced to $9.1 billion plus interest and penalties.[3]

In a United Kingdom case, RCS Contractors Ltd v. Conway, the parties to an otherwise valid oral contract for construction services disagreed as to whether they had entered a single oral contract for work at three sites, or three separate contracts, one for each work site. Without a written agreement, the court had to examine other evidence to attempt to discern the intent of the parties, ultimately concluding that the parties were operating under a single contract.[4]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Oral contract

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An oral contract, also referred to as a contract, is a legally binding agreement formed through spoken words rather than written documentation. Like any valid , it requires essential elements including a definite offer, , , and mutual intention to be bound by its terms. However, the absence of written records often makes it difficult to prove the existence, terms, or intent of an oral in legal disputes. Oral contracts are generally enforceable in most common law jurisdictions, subject to the same remedies as written agreements, such as damages for breach or specific performance where appropriate. Their validity is primarily limited by the Statute of Frauds, a doctrine originating in 17th-century English law and adopted in various forms across U.S. states, which mandates that specific types of contracts be evidenced by a signed writing to prevent fraud. Under the Statute, oral contracts are unenforceable for transactions involving the sale of interests in land, agreements not capable of performance within one year from formation, promises to answer for the debt of another, contracts made in consideration of marriage, sales of goods valued at $500 or more under the Uniform Commercial Code, and executors' or administrators' promises to pay estate debts from personal funds. Exceptions to the can permit enforcement of qualifying oral contracts, including doctrines of partial performance (such as significant improvements to land in reliance on the agreement) or (where one party detrimentally relies on the promise). Requirements and exceptions vary by , with state-specific statutes like California's § 1624 outlining additional details, but the core principles emphasize reliability while guarding against or false claims. Despite their legal standing, legal experts recommend documenting agreements in writing to avoid evidentiary challenges and ensure clarity.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition

An oral contract, also known as a parol contract, is a legally binding agreement formed through spoken words rather than written documentation. It becomes enforceable when it satisfies the fundamental requirements of contract law, such as mutual assent and , though its validity may be subject to jurisdictional limitations like the . The core characteristics of an oral contract include a verbal exchange of promises between parties, which may encompass immediate terms or those implied from the of the discussion. Unlike written agreements, oral contracts rely on the parties' recollection or from witnesses to establish and interpret the terms, making proof of their existence and details more challenging in disputes. Common examples include everyday transactions, such as verbally agreeing to purchase produce at a for a set price or hiring a neighbor to mow a in exchange for payment. Oral contracts differ from implied contracts in that they necessitate explicit verbal communication of the agreement, whereas implied contracts arise from the parties' conduct without any spoken or written words. For instance, an oral contract might involve a direct verbal promise to deliver goods, while an implied contract could be inferred from a customer's repeated purchases and the seller's consistent fulfillment without discussion.

Essential Elements

For an oral contract to be legally valid, it must incorporate several core elements that mirror those required for written agreements, ensuring the verbal exchange forms a binding obligation. These elements—mutual assent, , capacity, of purpose, and of terms—provide the foundation for enforceability by demonstrating voluntary agreement, exchange of value, competence, lawfulness, and clarity. Without these, the purported may be deemed invalid or unenforceable in court. Mutual assent requires that both parties verbally express agreement to the same terms, typically through an that demonstrates a meeting of the minds. This element emphasizes objective intent, where the words and conduct of the parties indicate a shared understanding of the bargain, rather than subjective beliefs. For instance, in a verbal agreement to sell , one party must propose specific terms that the other unequivocally accepts without reservation. Consideration refers to the bargained-for exchange of value between the parties, such as , , services, or promises, which makes the agreement enforceable. It ensures that each incurs a legal detriment or provides a benefit to the other, distinguishing a from a mere . For example, in an oral agreement to mow a , the promised constitutes for the service provided. Without , the agreement lacks binding force. Capacity ensures that all parties involved possess the legal ability to to the agreement, meaning they must be adults of sound mind and not under duress or . Generally, individuals under 18 years of age lack full capacity and can void the upon reaching adulthood, while those with mental impairments or severe intoxication at the time of agreement may also challenge its validity if their judgment was substantially impaired. This protects vulnerable parties from exploitation in verbal dealings. The legality of purpose mandates that the oral contract's objective must align with the and , prohibiting agreements that facilitate crimes, , or harm to . For example, a verbal pact to distribute illegal drugs or evade taxes would be void , as courts refuse to enforce contracts that undermine legal standards. This element upholds the integrity of contractual obligations within a lawful framework. Certainty of terms demands that the verbal discussion clearly outlines the essential aspects of the deal, such as , , and timelines, to avoid in determining breaches or remedies. While minor details can remain flexible if implied by custom or , core provisions must be definite enough for a to interpret and enforce; overly vague language, like an unspecified delivery date without reasonable , could invalidate the agreement. This requirement is particularly crucial in oral contracts, where no written record exists to resolve disputes.

Formation and Validity

Offer and Acceptance

In the formation of an oral contract, the offer represents a clear verbal proposal by one to enter into an agreement on specific terms, such as a price, service, or action, which creates a reasonable expectation of commitment if accepted. This verbal manifestation of willingness must be definite enough to form the basis of a bargain, distinguishing it from mere invitations to negotiate or preliminary discussions. Acceptance in an oral contract requires an unqualified verbal agreement that precisely mirrors the terms of the offer, communicated directly to the offeror to demonstrate mutual assent. Such acceptance can be expressed through straightforward words like "Agreed" or "I accept," or even a in the presence of witnesses, provided it unequivocally aligns with the proposed terms without modifications or conditions. This direct communication ensures the parties' intentions are immediately synchronized, forming the mutual assent essential to contract creation. An offer in an oral contract may be revoked verbally by the offeror at any time before , but the revocation must be clearly communicated to the offeree to terminate their power to accept. Once occurs, the offer cannot be withdrawn, as the is then binding, subject to complementary elements like to enforce it. For instance, if a seller verbally offers to sell for a stated during a and the buyer responds with immediate verbal , the agreement is formed and irrevocable thereafter. Similarly, in a face-to-face deal like a handshake agreement for services at an agreed rate, revocation is only possible prior to the offeree's affirmative verbal or demonstrative assent.

Consideration and Intention

In oral contracts, serves as the bargained-for exchange of value that renders the verbal agreement legally binding, typically involving a of —such as services or —in return for something else of value, like payment or another . This element must be present and discernible from the parties' spoken words or implied conduct during the , ensuring mutuality of just as in written contracts. Without , an oral remains gratuitous and . Courts evaluate the sufficiency of consideration but generally refrain from assessing its adequacy, meaning they do not require the exchanged values to be precisely equal or proportionate; instead, any legal detriment to the promisee or benefit to the promisor suffices to support the contract. For instance, a nominal amount or seemingly unequal exchange will uphold an oral agreement unless evidence of fraud, duress, or unconscionability is present. This approach, rooted in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 79, preserves freedom of contract while preventing judicial interference in arm's-length bargains. Past consideration is invalid in oral contracts, as a subsequent promise to compensate for an act or service already performed independently cannot form a bargained-for exchange, lacking the contemporaneous mutuality required for enforceability. Exceptions may apply under doctrines like if the prior act induced detrimental reliance, but the core rule deems such promises non-contractual. An essential counterpart to is the parties' , which must be objectively manifested through their verbal communications and surrounding circumstances to establish a binding oral . Under the objective of formation, courts assess what a would understand from the parties' words and actions, rather than their subjective beliefs. In commercial contexts, this intention is presumed unless rebutted, facilitating dealings, whereas social or familial agreements often lack such presumption absent explicit indications of seriousness.

Enforceability and Limitations

Statute of Frauds

The Statute of Frauds originated as an English statute enacted by Parliament in 1677, formally known as "An Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries." Its primary purpose was to curb widespread fraud and perjury in legal proceedings by mandating that certain high-stakes contracts be evidenced by a signed writing, thereby providing reliable documentation to verify the existence and terms of agreements rather than relying solely on potentially unreliable oral testimony. This requirement addressed the evidentiary challenges of the era, where false claims could easily lead to unjust enforcement of nonexistent obligations. The specifies categories of contracts that must be in writing to be enforceable, focusing on those involving significant value or long-term commitments. These include contracts for the sale or transfer of or any interest in , such as leases exceeding a short duration; promises to answer for the of another ( agreements); promises made in of , like prenuptial agreements or commitments conditioned on wedlock; executors' or administrators' promises to pay estate debts from personal funds; and executory contracts that cannot be fully performed within one year from the date of formation, calculated based on the agreement's terms rather than actual performance. In commercial contexts, modern codifications like the (UCC) extend the requirement to contracts for the sale of priced at $500 or more, ensuring written confirmation for transactions of notable economic impact. In contemporary jurisdictions, including all U.S. states, the has been widely adopted through statutes modeled on the original , with adaptations to fit local needs. For instance, the UCC's $500 threshold for goods sales, established in 1952 and adopted by every state, reflects an adjustment for inflation and commerce but remains a fixed benchmark in most jurisdictions, though some states have proposed increases. Variations exist, such as differing interpretations of the one-year rule or additional categories in specific state laws, but the core principle of requiring writings for these contracts persists to safeguard against disputes. Non-compliance with the typically renders oral agreements in covered categories unenforceable in court, meaning neither party can sue for breach or seek based solely on verbal . This bar serves as an , potentially leading to dismissal of claims and leaving parties without legal recourse for the alleged . However, limited exceptions, such as partial performance in land contracts, may allow enforcement in certain cases to prevent .

Exceptions and Proof Challenges

While the Statute of Frauds generally requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable, courts recognize exceptions such as partial performance to prevent injustice when one party has relied on the oral agreement. Under the partial performance doctrine, an oral contract may be enforced if one party has taken substantial actions in reliance on it, such as making partial payments, taking possession of property, or making improvements, which unequivocally refer to the agreement's existence. For instance, in real estate transactions, if a buyer pays a portion of the purchase price and occupies the land, courts may estop the seller from invoking the Statute to avoid enforcement, as denying the contract would result in unjust enrichment. This exception is rooted in equity and applies narrowly, typically requiring clear evidence that the performance aligns solely with the alleged oral terms. Another key exception is promissory estoppel, which allows of an oral promise to award when the promisee has reasonably and detrimentally relied on it, and such reliance was foreseeable by the promisor. The elements include a clear promise, foreseeable detrimental reliance (e.g., forgoing other opportunities or incurring expenses), and injustice absent . A seminal case illustrating this is Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., where a franchisee's reliance on oral representations led to recoverable despite no formal . This doctrine serves as an , particularly for oral agreements barred by the , focusing on compensating losses from reliance rather than full . Proving an oral contract's existence and terms presents significant evidentiary hurdles, often relying on indirect methods since no written document exists. Common proof includes witness from disinterested parties who overheard the agreement, audio or video recordings of the discussions (if legally obtained), and such as follow-up emails, text messages, or payment records that corroborate the verbal terms. Courts also consider patterns of conduct, like partial performance or consistent business dealings, as supporting evidence to establish the contract's validity. These proof challenges frequently lead to "he-said-she-said" disputes, where conflicting recollections create uncertainty, exacerbated by fade over time and the absence of contemporaneous . Without clear , litigation becomes protracted and costly due to the need for extensive discovery and credibility assessments.

Comparison with Written Contracts

Advantages of Oral Contracts

Oral contracts offer significant speed and convenience in their formation, allowing parties to reach binding agreements instantly through verbal communication without the need for drafting, reviewing, or signing documents. This is particularly for minor or urgent transactions where time is of the essence, such as quick service exchanges in retail or settings. The flexibility of oral contracts enables terms to be negotiated and adjusted on the spot, adapting to immediate circumstances without formal amendments. For instance, in ongoing personal or dealings, parties can verbally modify details like delivery times or quantities as needs evolve, fostering adaptability in dynamic situations. This contrasts with written contracts, which often require structured changes to maintain enforceability. In terms of cost savings, oral contracts eliminate expenses associated with legal drafting, paperwork, and professional fees, making them ideal for low-value or low-risk transactions among individuals, freelancers, or small enterprises. By bypassing these formalities, parties can allocate resources more efficiently toward the actual performance of the agreement. The informality of oral contracts promotes trust and in established relationships, reducing bureaucratic barriers and encouraging to clarify intentions. This relational approach is especially beneficial in personal or community-based dealings, where mutual reliance strengthens bonds without the perceived adversarial nature of written documentation.

Disadvantages and Risks

One of the primary disadvantages of oral contracts is their enforceability challenges, as proving the existence and specific terms of the agreement often relies on verbal rather than tangible , which can lead to disputes over what was actually agreed upon. Without written documentation, courts may struggle to ascertain the precise obligations, increasing the likelihood of litigation and inconsistent outcomes. Oral contracts are particularly susceptible to memory and interpretation errors, where parties may forget details over time or recall terms differently, resulting in misunderstandings that undermine the agreement's integrity. For instance, ambiguous phrasing during discussions can lead to divergent expectations, especially in informal settings, making it difficult to resolve conflicts without additional corroborative like statements. The scope of oral contracts is limited by laws such as the , which renders certain agreements unenforceable unless documented in writing, including those involving the sale of interests in land, agreements that cannot be performed within one year from the date of formation, or sales of goods for $500 or more under the . This restriction makes oral contracts unsuitable for complex or high-value transactions, where the absence of a written record could void the entire deal and expose parties to significant financial risks. Furthermore, oral contracts heighten vulnerability to , as the lack of records allows one party to deny, alter, or misrepresent the agreed terms more easily, facilitating deceit in high-stakes scenarios. This risk is amplified in the absence of verifiable proof, potentially leading to or losses for the aggrieved party, underscoring why written contracts serve as a safer alternative for protecting interests.

Enforcement and Remedies

Proving Breach

Proving a breach of an oral contract requires demonstrating that one party failed to fulfill their verbal obligations, such as non-delivery of promised services or goods, which constitutes a material violation of the agreement's terms. This failure must be shown to have caused harm, distinguishing it from minor deviations that do not undermine the contract's purpose. The bears the burden of proof, requiring by a preponderance of the standard—meaning it is more likely than not that the existed, its terms were as alleged, and the failed to perform without justification. In most jurisdictions, this civil standard applies to oral contracts, though some cases involving certain oral agreements may demand clear and convincing to overcome presumptions against their enforceability. Evidence to establish these elements often relies on oral testimony from the parties or witnesses present during the agreement's formation, as there is no written record to reference. Supporting proof can include circumstantial indicators, such as partial performance by one party—like initial payments made or services partially rendered—which implies the contract's existence and terms. Additionally, evidence of the parties' course of dealing or industry customs may clarify ambiguous verbal terms and demonstrate non-performance. In limited cases, exceptions to the , such as partial performance, can bolster the admissibility of such evidence for otherwise unenforceable oral agreements. Defendants may raise defenses to counter the breach claim, including denial that any oral agreement was formed, asserting impossibility of performance due to unforeseen events beyond their control, or mutual mistake regarding essential terms of the verbal understanding. These defenses, if proven, can negate the contract's validity or excuse the alleged breach, shifting the evidentiary focus back to the to rebut them. Once a breach of an oral contract has been established through sufficient , courts in jurisdictions typically award remedies that aim to compensate the non-breaching party or restore fairness, drawing from principles applicable to generally. The primary remedy is compensatory damages, which seek to place the injured party in the position they would have occupied had the contract been performed, covering actual losses such as the difference in value between expected and received performance, plus incidental or minus any costs avoided. If no actual harm is proven despite a clear breach, courts may award nominal damages, a small symbolic sum to acknowledge the violation without quantifying loss. Punitive damages are rarely available for alone, as they require of tortious conduct, such as or willful , beyond mere non-performance. Specific performance, an ordering the breaching party to fulfill the contract's terms, is infrequently granted for oral contracts due to the heightened evidentiary burdens and risks of uncertainty in proving the exact obligations. However, it may be awarded in exceptional cases involving unique or irreplaceable subject matter, such as oral agreements for the sale of specific or rendition of that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages, provided part performance and clear, convincing demonstrate the contract's terms. Rescission serves as another remedy, allowing the to cancel the oral contract entirely and restore both parties to their pre-agreement positions, which is particularly appropriate for material breaches where continuing the agreement would be unjust. This equitable relief requires returning any benefits received and may involve restitution to prevent . For oral contracts that are partially or fully unenforceable due to proof challenges or the , courts may invoke promissory estoppel to award reliance damages, compensating the non-breaching party for foreseeable losses incurred in reasonable reliance on the promise, such as out-of-pocket expenses, to avoid injustice. This remedy limits recovery to actual detriment rather than full and applies when the oral agreement induced substantial action or forbearance.

Historical and Jurisdictional Context

Historical Evolution

Oral agreements formed the cornerstone of contractual enforcement in pre-literate societies, where customs, oaths, and witness testimony served as primary mechanisms for validation and . In these communities, binding promises were often solemnized through rituals or public declarations, relying on social pressures and communal norms to ensure compliance, as seen in early tribal systems where breaches could invoke sanctions or . In ancient , oral contracts evolved from formal verbal rituals to more flexible forms, reflecting the society's transition from rigid traditions to commercial needs. The earliest contract, the stipulatio, was a purely oral agreement requiring a formal question-and-answer exchange, such as "Do you promise?" followed by "I promise," enforceable through state actions like legis actio without regard for until later reforms in the late . By the classical period around 200 B.C., consensual contracts emerged alongside verbal ones, allowing informal oral pacts for sales and loans based on mutual consent and good faith (bona fides), supported by witnesses and evolving into hybrid written forms for durability. Early English , rooted in Anglo-Saxon traditions, similarly prioritized oral agreements, formalized through ceremonies like the "wed" pledge in public settings with witnesses to affirm , betrothals, and suretyships. Enforceability depended on communal and sureties, as codified in laws like those of Aethelbirht, where oral wills and transactions were upheld if declared before kin or assemblies. However, by the medieval period, the rise of and concerns over prompted a shift toward written ; the , enacted in 1677 under Charles II, mandated writings for certain contracts like land to prevent fraudulent oral claims and unreliable witness in trials. The 19th-century amplified the use of oral contracts in burgeoning commerce and labor markets, where rapid transactions in factories and trade often relied on verbal understandings for piece rates, seasonal wages, and shop rules, as formal writings were rare before widespread unionization. In the United States, the (UCC), first published in 1952 by the and , standardized commercial law across states, explicitly recognizing enforceable oral contracts for goods sales under Article 2 unless exceeding the threshold, promoting flexibility in everyday business dealings. In modern times, technological advancements have bolstered the enforcement of oral contracts by providing verifiable records, with call recording and speech analytics in contact centers capturing verbal assents like "I agree" as evidentiary proof for audits and disputes, though written agreements remain preferred in to mitigate risks of misinterpretation.

Variations Across Jurisdictions

In common law jurisdictions such as the and the , oral contracts are generally enforceable provided they do not fall within the categories prohibited by the , which requires written evidence for agreements involving land sales, guarantees, contracts not performable within one year, or certain executor promises. In the US, the (UCC) specifically permits oral contracts for the sale of goods valued under $500, while those exceeding this amount necessitate some written confirmation to be enforceable. Similarly, in the UK, English upholds oral agreements as binding absent statutory formalities, though the 1677 and subsequent laws like the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 mandate writing for land-related or specific high-value contracts, emphasizing evidentiary challenges over outright invalidity. Civil law systems, exemplified by and , recognize oral contracts as valid based on mutual , but impose stricter proof requirements that often favor written forms for certainty and . In , under the Code Civil (Article 1101), contracts form through alone and may be oral unless a specific formality is mandated, such as for settlements or suretyships; however, Article 1359 requires written proof for contracts exceeding €1,500 (as set by ), generally prohibiting testimony except under specified exceptions, prioritizing written evidence to ensure reliability. Germany's (BGB, §145) similarly treats oral agreements as binding without formal requirements in most cases, allowing informal modifications unless statutes demand writing (e.g., for real estate); yet, in litigation under the Code of (§§373-401), testimony serves as key evidence for oral terms, though courts assess credibility rigorously to mitigate disputes. Under Islamic law, particularly principles applied in , oral contracts are fully enforceable as long as they align with Quranic injunctions against or , with strong reliance on and the implied covenant of (amanah) to uphold obligations. In Saudi courts, evidentiary standards draw from , where oral agreements are proven through the of upright Muslim witnesses (typically two males or one male and two females for financial matters), and parties' conduct post-formation reinforces enforceability absent . This approach, codified in part by the 2023 Civil Transactions Law (Article 41), mandates in negotiations and performance, extending Sharia's emphasis on equity to modern commerce. Internationally, the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG, 1980) facilitates cross-border trade by explicitly allowing oral s for goods sales, overriding national writing requirements in signatory states unless parties opt out. Article 11 of the CISG states that a "need not be concluded in or evidenced by writing and is not subject to any other requirement as to form," promoting uniformity and reducing barriers in global transactions involving over 90 contracting parties. This provision contrasts with stricter domestic rules, enabling oral agreements in international contexts while preserving obligations under Article 7.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/oral_contract
  2. https://magazine.wharton.upenn.edu/digital/the-legal-value-of-oral-agreements/
  3. https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/pji-master/civil/c501.01.pdf
  4. https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=idaho-law-review
  5. https://www.lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/the-statute-of-frauds/
  6. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-201
  7. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1624.
  8. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statute_of_frauds
  9. https://red.library.usd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3084&context=sdlrev
  10. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_contract
  11. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract_implied_in_fact
  12. https://pressbooks.uiowa.edu/introtolaw/chapter/introduction-to-contract-law/
  13. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/oral-contract-requirements.html
  14. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/oral-contract.asp
  15. https://verkerkecontractsone.lawbooks.cali.org/chapter/revocation-of-offers/
  16. https://www.katzlawgroup.com/are-verbal-contracts-enforceable
  17. https://nysba.org/oral-contracts-in-new-york-how-valid-are-handshake-agreements/
  18. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration
  19. https://verkerkecontractsone.lawbooks.cali.org/chapter/adequacy-doctrine/
  20. https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/moral-or-past-consideration
  21. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract
  22. https://rvcc.pressbooks.pub/businesslaw131interactive/chapter/5-3-objective-theory-of-contracts/
  23. https://www.nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/contracts/DefensesToFormation/StatuteOfFrauds.asp
  24. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2092&context=mulr
  25. https://www.calalaw.com/blog/verbal-contract-validity/
  26. https://legittai.com/blog/informal-contract
  27. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/landlord-tenant/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-oral-leas.html
  28. https://www.lankfordlawfirm.com/blog/informal-agreements-vs-formal-contracts/
  29. https://www.upcounsel.com/oral-contracts
  30. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statute-of-frauds.asp
  31. https://www.reuters.com/practical-law-the-journal/litigation/proving-breach-contract-claims-2023-07-03/
  32. https://www.iowacourts.gov/moduledocuments/embed/25441/151483_9C99E75E2FE1F.pdf
  33. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=894498.pdf&subdirectory=2020-1332%5CDocketItems&source=DL_Clerk
  34. https://civil.sog.unc.edu/determining-contract-terms-where-breach-is-alleged/
  35. https://www.lawpla.com/blog/are-oral-contracts-legally-binding-in-california-what-business-owners-need-to-know/
  36. https://www.upcounsel.com/breach-of-verbal-agreement
  37. https://www.upcounsel.com/enforceability-of-oral-contracts
  38. https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/business-and-corporate-law/contract-litigation/common-defenses-breach-contract-cases/
  39. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1742&context=sclr
  40. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rescission
  41. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1711&context=law-faculty-publications
  42. https://anthroholic.com/dispute-settlement-in-pre-literate-societies
  43. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1491&context=fac_artchop
  44. https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=history_undergrad_theses
  45. https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3003&context=law-review
  46. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3357&context=ilj
  47. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/chapter3
  48. https://www.uniformlaws.org/acts/ucc
  49. https://www.cxtoday.com/contact-center/a-guide-to-taking-verbal-contracts-in-a-contact-centre/
  50. https://sprintlaw.co.uk/articles/oral-contracts-in-the-uk-are-verbal-agreements-enforceable/
  51. https://www.gide.com/sites/default/files/executing_contracts_in_france_w-025-04091.pdf
  52. https://www.damste.eu/expertise/german-desk-german-law/german-contract-law/
  53. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=718ba6cc-e27f-44aa-8842-b13a59c4b9de
  54. https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2023/07/the-saudi-civil-transactions-law-general-principle
  55. https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09951_e_ebook.pdf
  56. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/salegoods/conventions/sale_of_goods/cisg
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.