In my field written agreement is a very important aspect of our work. When we share research outside of the company we have to come up with agreement documents to outline what information is to be shared or not, who owns the rights to the research that comes from the agreements, and how that information can be distributed within each company and who is able to access that information. It all needs to be outlined in these agreement documents and can at times take months to prepare cause of all the litigation and other things that the entire legal team needs to agree to before us as researchers are able to collaborate with other institutions. 

Hi kbs27,
In my past, I once had a verbal contract go bad, leading to a messy lawsuit because key details weren’t documented. I wont get into the details too much but I was not paid for work that I did for a startup company. I will say this, while verbal agreements can be legally binding, their lack of written proof makes disputes hard to resolve. Oral and verbal agreements are the same, but be careful in relying on them. It is much better and safer to have a written agreement because they are crucial as they clearly define terms, protect all parties, and minimize misunderstandings. From my experience, always get agreements in writing, no matter how trustworthy the other party seems.

The obvious reason for choosing a written contract over a verbal one is that verbal contracts are more challenging to defend or enforce in court, but another key advantage of written contracts is setting clear expectations. It is a long proven fact that memories people hold change over time, and if a contract is verbal, certain parts of the agreement can easily be forgotten or misremembered by one or both parties. With a written contract, every part of the agreement is written in detailed, specific language to ensure that both parties know what they are signing and it can be referred back to in the event of a disagreement.

The main difference between a verbal agreement and a written agreement is that, with a verbal agreement, the parties may forget aspects of it and have nowhere to refer to all its terms. In a written agreement, the parties have documents to refer to the terms. Also, in a verbal agreement, only the parties' word is given, so they may not follow through on what was agreed. With a written agreement, the parties’ signatures are required, making it more legally binding.

Verbal agreements can be legal, but they are not very reliable because nothing is written down. If a disagreement happens later, it becomes hard to prove what each person said or promised. Verbal and oral agreements mean the same thing, since both are based on spoken communication. It’s usually not a good idea to start a project based only on a verbal agreement, especially in consulting or medical-device work. Written agreements are important because they clearly show the terms, deadlines, and responsibilities for both sides. Having everything in writing helps avoid problems and protects everyone involved.

A verbal agreement could technically be an oral agreement or a written agreement, so in terms of the difference between the two there is virtually none as an oral agreement is a type of verbal agreement. If we are speaking about Written vs Oral agreements, the most obvious difference is the fact that one is spoken and one is written. Another major difference is the ease of using a oral contract vs a written contract in court. For one, proving the existence of the oral contract can prove to be quite difficult as there may not be any proof of the existence of this contract. This shows obvious benefits to using a written agreement, especially in medical device development! Both of these agreements are legally binding, but because it is harder to prove the verbal agreements existence, it is certainly a more risky option. That said, it is likely a very bad idea to start working on a project based solely on verbal agreement, and it is advisable to have a written contract in place. If we are speaking from the medical device industry, verbal contracts would also not be permissible as documentation is mandatory and written agreements must be established to meet regulatory guidelines. Written agreements show their importance by providing clarity of project terms, establishes risks and liability clauses, and protects the intellectual property of medical device developers. It is essential in the medical device industry to use written agreements, and in general, oral agreements should be avoided. What clauses do you believe are essential to include in a written medical device development contract?

A written contract provides documented and clear evidence that can be utilized in court. An oral contract relies on additional proof which can be a lot harder to establish. If there is any possibility that the agreement might lead to legal disputes, then it is safer to have the terms in a written document. If the situation isn't too risky and legal protection is not a huge concern then an oral agreement might be acceptable

A verbal/oral agreement is essentially the same thing, both mean an agreement made through spoken communication. Verbal agreements can be legally binding, but the biggest problem is proving what was actually said if a dispute comes up. That’s why relying only on a verbal agreement can be risky, especially for projects involving time, money, or shared responsibility. A written agreement provides clarity, protects both sides, and avoids misunderstandings. It lays out expectations, timelines, and deliverables so everyone is on the same page. For any project or collaboration, it’s always safer and more professional to have things documented.

I think the biggest difference between a written agreement versus a verbal agreement is that a written agreement is physical, so there is evidence to support the terms of the contract. with a verbal agreement, there is no proof of a written document or contract, so it's more of a "he said, she said" situation which wouldn't really slide. therefore relying solely on verbal agreements is highly risky especially when you are trying to prove it. Just the fact that it's difficult to prove verbal agreements and lack of physical evidence should be enough to say that written agreements are more ideal and less risky.

In terms of written vs verbal, a written agreement is much more evidential and easier to identify the certain terms of the agreement when it comes to legal matters. A verbal agreement can also be defended legally, but there are significantly more grey areas. In all cases, it is really important that you really choose a written agreement or work towards a written agreement because with verbal agreements, there can be mis implications or miscommunication between the 2 parties/individuals depending on the scenario and this can cause lots of discrepancies in what each party may be responsible for/assumes to do in the agreement. Verbal agreements have more areas for error so it can cause a difficult situation to form. In terms of verbal or oral, that is in a sense the same thing, but it is just not written in that case. A verbal agreement can become written where an oral agreement is just spoken and not necessarily written. The main problem with verbal (oral) is that there are significantly higher chances of disagreement since neither side can really "prove" what was said unless they come to a full agreement or one side admits to a mistake or wrongdoing.

What stood out to me when reading some of the recent posts is how easily verbal agreements can fall apart even when both sides believe they understand each other. A spoken agreement might feel simple and convenient in the moment, but once time passes and details blur, each person can walk away with a different memory of what was promised. That is why relying only on verbal commitments at the start of a project can create unnecessary risk. Without anything written down, it becomes difficult to prove responsibilities, expectations, or even the original intent behind the agreement. Even so, I think verbal agreements still have value as a way to build trust and get conversations moving, but they should not serve as the foundation for meaningful work. A written agreement protects both parties equally, provides clarity, and prevents misunderstandings from turning into conflict. It also signals that both sides take the project seriously enough to commit to shared terms. Do you guys think people sometimes choose verbal agreements because they want to avoid the formality of putting things in writing? In many cases, putting the terms in writing is what creates the stability that both sides need to move forward confidently which is why I'm asking for more thoughts about this.

While there are situations where a verbal agreement may be legally binding, using a verbal agreement as an alternative to a written contract is extremely risky due to the lack of documentation regarding what exactly was agreed upon by either party which makes it difficult to enforce should there be a dispute. The terms “verbal agreement” and also the term “oral agreement” can be considered the same in my opinion. Both rely on the recollection or memory of individuals between who the agreement, therefore, their validity is based entirely upon the honesty of both parties and their trustworthiness regarding what each party remembers (or a third party reliable witness). Written contracts provide detailed definitions of the terms and conditions, deadlines, duties and responsibilities, rights of ownership and remedies of whatever party breaches the agreement which provides protection of all parties and decreases the likelihood of future conflict. Using just a verbal agreement to begin a project may be acceptable when the risks are low, but whenever money, intellectual property or time commitments are at stake, a written contract will establish expectations as obligations which can be enforced and reduce the probability of conflict arising out of the agreement in the future.