If you are going to begin spending money and time on a project I would take the precautions of ensuring the agreement is written so if your funding decides to pull their resources or not collaborate with you for the project you have a written agreement show they must go through with the project. However if you are deciding a simple decision of where and when to present the project to possible investors a simple verbal agreement will suffice. Often times to prosecute a dilemma rooted from a verbal agreement you are going to need a witness to provide evidence this agreement existed. If there is a witness sitting in on a agreement they are most likely going to record the agreement in some form of paperwork which will suffice as evidence. Therefore if I was in a position of power I would ensure all agreements are written to decrease chances of dilemma and conflict.
Hey Ansel,
I agree. I believe that having everything down in writing is the best way to avoid potential conflict. Although any issues may not be deliberate, having writing that one can refer back to is much more useful than trying to remember what someone said. Even if a witness is present for a verbal agreement, that witness may be biased or forget the information that was discussed.
-Murad
I disagree with most of what people are saying. Oral contracts are not difficult to prove as long as there is just one witness. Oral contracts are just as binding as written contracts. Although there is no disputing a written contract in a court of law, something as unprotected as a piece of paper is probably just as difficult to protect as a convincing agreement which differs from the truth, that is, if one side of the deal is trying to back out saying something that happened didn't. I also agree because most people are misunderstadning the difference between verbal oral and written. Oral is a contract made by speaking. Written is a contract made by writing the words down on paper. Verbal is any contract which uses words: written or oral.
As other students mentioned in their posts, a written agreement is considered a legal binding document, and thus, the agreement is essential if the matter gets taken to court because all parts of the legal contract are clearly stated and can be defended. On the other hand, an oral agreement is much more difficult to defend because there is not much solid evidence to provide to the court. Legal issues, disputes, and misunderstandings can be prevented with proof of documentation. In regards to the medical device industry, if a project happens to go wrong with aspects such as finance, you can simply go back to the written contracts to show what was agreed upon between both parites before the start of the project. The “he said/she said” matter will certainly arise if a verbal agreement is done.
There is an old adage that a wise engineer once told me; Always, always get everything in writing. Getting things in writing would make everyone's life easier... But only if the person who prepared that document is ready to devote the required resources. I once had a manager promise the world, but then when I asked if I could get it in writing, reality set in. An oral agreement is much harder to defend. It is a lot of he said/she said. It is much better to start with a written contract establishing the business relationship and terms.
I have too semi agree with you, yes the written agreement is important to be able to have strong argument in the court this will allow you to have a better chance to be able to win if something went wrong. But I don’t believe that verbal agreement is actually good, this reason is because 1 you have to back it up and in this world money is involve and people can be bride to take the other side so I don’t believe verbal agreement should be allow, except if there is a recording to have a better evidence, if recording is not present I wouldn’t allow verbal agreement to be done at all.
Verbal agreement and Written agreement are totally different. One is more important than the other. First of all verbal agreement nothing is guaranteed. Verbal is all talk, and most of the time it is just discussion on what ideas they have and basically it is a discussion on what they will do. In my opinion nothing should be done until it is set in stone. All work and agreements should be written documentation.To make sure all work is followed by legal documentation if there is any disagreements.
I agree with you, lets say a company is getting sued, no verbal agreement will be taken into account in court. There is no proof that will back your claims. Only written agreements are known to be reinforce your case. In all legal matter you need written agreements because some people say one thing and do another.
You make a great point Juan. Anything valuable in terms of an agreement should be appropriately recorded. Especially in business when valuable ideas, ventures and careers are at stake. Though, as a few of our classmates mentioned, an oral agreement can be validated, it is much more difficult and requires more defined evidence to rule one way or another. Additionally, certain agreements that last over a year, a sale of land or involving greater than $500 it may be subject to the aforementioned statute of frauds.
Thanks,
Romany
Advantages of written agreement:
The main advantage to the drawing up of contracts to minimize liabilities is that it reduces the risk that the company issuing the contracts will be sued. By making sure that all parties agree on the terms of a particular agreement and making everyone sign a contract attesting to this, this strategy reduces the chance that one party will have grounds for legal action later on.
In addition to reducing the risk of lawsuits, contracts can also provide clarity to employees and partners in their mission. Contracts often outline exactly what's expected of each party. In addition to reducing the likelihood that one party will be able to sue the other party later on, these contracts can also help each party remain mindful of exactly what they've been contracted to do, thus reducing confusion and increasing focus.
Written agreements are certainly much more beneficial than verbal agreements as they provide a more secure platform for one to defend himself or herself in conflict. It is a reliable method used by many today while collaborating on projects since it can effortlessly avoid misunderstanding among colleagues and can be applied as a defense mechanism if caught in dispute. Oral agreements are obviously not as useful because they are unable to guarantee any information, and if the verbal agreement is accurate it does not hold the power presented by documentation.
Hi Nicole,
You bring up an interesting point in that companies should be questioned if they are not willing to have legal counsel. When legal disputes arise, it forces the contractor to think twice as to why they want to do business with a particular company and if they are trustworthy enough to do so. Both parties should be fully certain that doing business with one another is safe, reliable, and resourceful. Companies should put a lot of thought into their partnerships and ask questions upfront to figure out if the relationship is one that drives equal value on both ends.
I find that to be very surprising as I did not know verbal agreements were something that is acknowledged by the law. The quote above says "as long as there is enough evidence" but what is enough evidence? An email discussing the topics that were discussed in person? I don't see why anyone would have an oral agreement in a business setting.
Both written and verbal can be very useful, but I would think that a verbal agreement should be followed up with a written agreement. A verbal can be good to work out the terms, but once on paper those terms are clear to both parties and it will be signed to show both agree. In the written you can capture everything that is needed, which may be hard to do in a verbal. When it comes to a verbal people may forget exactly what was agreed upon.
As a lot of people mentioned before, the biggest different is mainly documentation. A written contract is easier to dispute in court when compared to an oral contract. Often times, what is said can be interpreted indirectly or may imply something else. As a result, oral contracts tend to be harder to dispute within court. One should rely on written and documented agreements that are clear and concise between both parties in order to avoid litigation.
Chris
