Verbal (Contract) Agreement

From GM-RKB
(Redirected from Verbal Contract Agreement)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A Verbal Agreement is a contract formed through spoken words rather than written documentation.



References

2024a

2024b

  • (Wikipedia, 2024) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract Retrieved:2024-8-25.
    • 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.

2024c

  • (Wikipedia, 2024) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Written_and_oral_contracts Retrieved:2024-5-6.
    • A contract is often evidenced in writing or by deed. The general rule is that a person who signs a contractual document will be bound by the terms in that document. This rule is referred to as the rule in L'Estrange v Graucob or the "signature rule".[1] This rule was approved by the High Court of Australia in Toll(FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd.[2] The rule typically binds a signatory to a contract regardless of whether they have actually read it,[1][2] provided the document is contractual in nature. [3] However, defences such as duress or unconscionability may enable the signer to avoid the obligation. Further, reasonable notice of a contract's terms must be given to the other party prior to their entry into the contract.[4] [5] Written contracts have typically been preferred in common law legal systems. [6] In 1677 England passed the Statute of Frauds which influenced similar statute of frauds laws in the United States and other countries such as Australia. In general, the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in the United States requires a written contract for tangible product sales in excess of $500, and for real estate contracts to be written. If the contract is not required by law to be written, an oral contract is generally valid and legally binding. [7] The United Kingdom has since replaced the original Statute of Frauds, but written contracts are still required for various circumstances such as land (through the Law of Property Act 1925). Nonetheless, a valid contract may generally be made orally or even by conduct.An oral contract may also be called a parol contract or a verbal contract, with "verbal" meaning "spoken" rather than "in words", an established usage in British English with regards to contracts and agreements, and common although somewhat deprecated as "loose" in American English. An unwritten, unspoken contract, also known as "a contract implied by the acts of the parties", which can be legally implied either from the facts or as required in law. Implied-in-fact contracts are real contracts under which parties receive the "benefit of the bargain".[8] However, contracts implied in law are also known as quasi-contracts, and the remedy is quantum meruit, the fair market value of goods or services rendered.
  1. 1.0 1.1 L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394.
  2. 2.0 2.1 .
  3. Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805
  4. .
  5. .
  6. Michida S. (1992) Contract Societies: Japan and the United States Contrasted. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal.
  7. Trans-Lex.org: international principle
  8. .