As per the responses from my peers, all businesses require contracts. As per this weeks lecture, contracts must demonstrate the capacity and intention for legal relations, include an offer and acceptance, as well as outline any considerations and formalities. Given the best contracts are those which are fully defined and without ambiguity or contradictions, it is best to present this information in the form of a written document that is legally enforceable. The agreements within written contracts ensures that that there are no misunderstandings, unlike in a verbal agreement where all details are centered around one's interpretation or the interpretation of witnesses which then eliminates one of the other defining elements of contracts which was not discussed - that being, certainty. Consequently, any incoherency could result in imposing on ones rights or the loss of goods, money, and/or services. 

Personally I would always prefer a written agreement over an oral agreement because if disputes about different things come up later down the line, it is difficult to actually make a definite claim that something was determined or not, especially if it comes down to a legal sense. Though there are some pros to going with a verbal agreement when starting a project, such as it being more time saving, less costly, and less of a hassle overall, the cons that come along with it outweigh the pros. As I briefly mentioned before, a downside to an oral agreement is that the expectations discussed are not clearly defined which can lead to misunderstandings. Since there isn't any documentation of what the expectations are, there is nothing that is binding people to the agreement since there is a possiblity that they can claim that it was never mentioned or expected. In a legal sense, an oral agreement fails to protect confidential information and intellectual property rights. A written agreement can legally protect your ideas and contributions to the project, since there is tangible evidence that can be used if they are violated. 

Even though a written contract can be time consuming, costly, and involves a decent amount of preparation and meetings with lawyers, it is worth it in the long wrong because it acts as a protection of your contributions. It also clearly lays out the expectations so that they cannot be refuted later down if issues do arise. 

Verbal contracts include any contract, as all language agreements are falsified. Rather, an oral contract is a legal agreement that can be enforced by a judge if necessary. To me, a written contract is more concrete than verbal one. An agreement in writing is almost always easier to enforce than an oral one. Verbal agreement can be tough to prove unless it is recorded. Also, it's hard to prove the agreed terms in court if needed.

Contracts managed to reach through spoken communication are referred to as verbal agreements. A written contract is an agreement documented in writing and signed by the parties to demonstrate their understanding. All warranties, whether oral, written, or implied, must include an offer and legally acceptable evidence. Verbal contracts are sometimes legally binding. Because oral agreements are difficult to prove, all parties should sign a written document.

Hi, I also agree with the previous discussions, that the written agreement is much more appropriate than the verbal agreement. In case of any dispute between the two parties, a written agreement is a savior.  A written agreement can be defended easily in court and it is less likely that any party will get harmed by it. However, a verbal agreement can be used as a weapon to harm the other party. The only issue with written agreements is nowadays a lot of hidden or invisible terms and conditions are applied to agreements. Sometimes you click the 'I agree' button and you don't even notice what you are agreeing with. That can cause trouble sometimes. Therefore, it is recommended to have a complete understanding of the written agreement.

While verbal contracts can be legally binding agreements, I think that a written agreement is the safer option if possible. While some agreements are necessarily written on paper, for other's where verbal or written agreements can be done, it is always better to write it out as it can always be gone back to for any disputes related to the agreement. This can prevent issues between companies, and potentially from even going to court. A recorded verbal agreement can also be a safe route to take. However, if there is a verbal agreement, there are federal and state laws to enforce your agreement and protect a party's rights. So while both choices can be considered safe, written agreements are definitely safer.

Written agreements involve papers and signatures while verbal agreements are based on the spoken word. I believe that no one should rely on a verbal agreement. A lot of situations can be spun so that it could benefit the other in agreements when it should be based on honesty. In terms of working for a company, they could tell you that you won't be involved in an issue, but legal papers can say otherwise. In terms of legality issues, I would say that a written contract would be more substantial. If one were to be entailed in a legal battle, a verbal agreement wouldn't hold much weight in solidifying your side of the story.

I think the most important factor in any type of contract whether it be written or oral is proper documentation of the contract. Oral contracts are less likely to be upheld unless it is recorded that both parties are agreeing to the terms of the contract. This could possibly be through a video or voice memo. Written contracts are of course the safer bet. Clarification of terms and agreements are a lot easier to express with these types of contracts. If legal issue were to happen, they would also upheld better in court, 

Q: Is there any significant difference between Verbal Agreement & Oral Agreement? How much one should rely on verbal agreement? Is it good to start working on a project just based on verbal Agreement? What are the importance of Written agreement?

A: I  would think that there would not be a significant agreement between a verbal agreement and an oral agreement. I  would assume that the only difference between the two would be the words that are used to distinguish the two. I  would personally not rely on a verbal agreement because it is much easier for an individual to say that they "did not say" a particular phrase or make an agreement verbally, whereas with the written contractual agreement, it is not only binding but hard to deny what is placed on paper. I  would not agree to working on a project without a written agreement for my own "checks and balances" as well as the company's because that allows both parties to not over-exert themselves and it leaves room for re-negotiation if need be.  

I personally would never rely on a verbal agreement on something that is of great importance because human error is forgetting the great detail of sometimes highly important matters. I also think it all depends on the basis of the agreement, how much detail is involved, and how many people it involves. Otherwise, I would opt for a written agreement so lines aren’t blurred and all of the necessary information is within the document that everyone would have access to if they need to go back and refresh their memory. One experience I can recall is my best friend having a verbal agreement with a local handyman in regard to building her a screened-in patio area, the agreed upon price, and the timeline it would be completed. Instead of it taking 2 months, it took 8 months. She paid him a deposit and paid for the supplies and he just disappeared for a few months arguing for more money. She eventually had to take him to small claims court.

Written agreements lay out all terms in writing and limits one party's ability to change the terms after the fact. The U.S. contract law has a provision called the “Four Corners Doctrine,” which governs written agreements and outlines why they are better than oral agreements. The four corners refer to the four edges of a document. The four corners rule states that two or more parties that enter into a binding agreement can’t use verbal or implied agreements in court to contradict the agreed terms. Evidence that exists outside these corners can’t be used in court, especially if it directly contradicts the terms of the agreement. Written agreements also protect all involved parties from misunderstandings that could happen during negotiations. All that matters is the agreement meets all of the elements of a valid contract. 

As verbal agreements can be challenging to enforce and establish in the event of a disagreement, it is typically not wise to rely primarily on them. A formal agreement that specifies the terms and circumstances of the agreement in detail and is signed by both parties is frequently preferable. If a verbal agreement is required, it is crucial to fully capture the agreement in writing. A summary of the agreement's contents can be provided to all participants in an email, along with a request for confirmation, or the conversation can be recorded with their approval.

However, depending on the rules of the applicable jurisdiction and the particulars of the agreement, there are several scenarios in which verbal agreements may be regarded as legally enforceable. If you are concerned about whether a verbal agreement will be enforceable in a given circumstance, it is always better to obtain legal counsel. The challenge with verbal agreements is frequently demonstrating the parameters of the agreement and the agreement's existence. A court may occasionally ask for proof, such as witness testimony or other records, to prove the existence and details of an agreement. To maintain clarity and prevent misunderstandings, it is generally a good idea to put any agreements in writing.

Hello,

The distinction between "verbal agreement" and "oral agreement" is often subtle, and the terms are used interchangeably in many contexts. Both refer to agreements that are made through spoken communication rather than in writing. The key lies in the spoken nature of the agreement, whether it's discussed verbally or orally.

While verbal agreements can be legally binding, they often present challenges in terms of enforceability and proof. Disputes may arise due to misunderstandings or differing recollections of what was agreed upon. This is where the importance of written agreements becomes evident. Relying solely on a verbal agreement, especially for complex projects, can be risky. Memories fade, and misinterpretations can occur. Having a written agreement provides a clear record of the terms and conditions, minimizing the likelihood of disputes. It serves as a reference point that parties can turn to in case of disagreements, providing legal clarity and protection for all involved.

Starting a project based solely on a verbal agreement might work for simple or short-term arrangements, but for more substantial collaborations, it's highly advisable to formalize the agreement in writing. A written agreement allows you to specify details such as project scope, deliverables, timelines, and responsibilities comprehensively. It also helps manage expectations and serves as a tool for risk mitigation.

@cef3 You make a valid point however, I would argue that even legal action seems unlikely, having a contract is still strongly beneficial. A contract ensures that all parties are on the same page regarding stated terms, reducing any misinterpretations and dispute in the future. While an oral contract might be acceptable for minor agreements, the lack of documentation can lead to unnecessary complications even in informal settings. One thing I remember from a lecture during a law class is that clarity and accountability are always easier to achieve in a written contract regardless of the perceived risk of legal issues.

Great questions! While "verbal agreement" and "oral agreement" are often used interchangeably, both refer to spoken agreements rather than written ones. However, relying solely on them can be risky due to a lack of tangible proof in case of disputes. Written agreements provide clarity, legal enforceability, and a documented reference, reducing misunderstandings.
 Starting a project based on a verbal agreement can work if there’s trust and mutual understanding, but it’s always safer to formalize things in writing, especially for more significant commitments.

Have you or someone you know faced challenges due to relying on verbal agreements?