I suppose it would depend on the sitution, if a stated specific agreement has to be met with legal implications and monatary value on the line then a written agreement is needed. However when other non legal binding or possible court appreences are in order and oral agreement is needed. I have known of some agreements to be recorded as well for due process in both written and oral agreements

Anthony you pose a great question here. I personally don't think that a witness in court is enough to back up a spoken agreement with confidence. The opposing counsel will try their hardest to discredit the witness on anything so as to prove their statement may not be trust worthy. Even if the witness is completely clean and trustworthy, theres no guaranteeing that a court will see them the same after some opposing counsel trying to skew their image. I personally beleive that a written agreement is the absolutely only way to ensure. I also feel that writing the contract may seem annoying at first but really once it is done, it's done and you are covered.
Kaitlin Connell

Although it may sound easy to recommend an agreement be written versus oral, sometimes time does not allow this to happen and does not allow every agreed upon aspect included in the contract. For instance, when a quick decision needs to be made an oral agreement may suffice. However, if details are left out for any reason, both parties will have a hard time disputing it in a courtroom.
I don’t believe verbal agreements are solid. People can change their mind and lie in court and then it is simply their reputation against yours. I always believe a signed and notarized agreement is one of the best agreements that will hold up in a court of law.

Personally, I think written agreement is definitely better, because the verbal agreement needs proof of people being there or a video recordings. These proofs can be changed with the current technologies or you can bribe a person to change the statement. The written agreement, is the best way to go because you have everything listed from what you are working on to how much you will be paid. People usually don't break this kind of agreement as it might be hard for them to win in the court so its basically pointless. In addition, as dr. simon mentioned the written agreements are more preffered in the companies and are also more used in generally. However, if you want to start working on a project, you can do it while being on verbal agreement, but I would personally get written agreement down the line.

I wouldn't trust or rely on any verbal agreement. no one should start any project based on verbal agreement, because if someone makes a promise verbally and breaks it, it is not considered a broken contract and that person cannot be punished for breaking it. An oral contract, on the other hand, is a promise that has been plainly spoken and not written down. Generally, you’ll want to defer to your local state’s laws regarding oral contracts to understand how ironclad they can be by force of law. But if you have proof of an oral contract, you might have legal grounding to pursue litigation once a promise has been broken. In contrast to oral contracts, the written contract is a contract that not only has a promise made on it, but also serves as its own proof that the promise was made.The beauty of the written contract is that it serves the dual role of both the promise and the proof of the promise, which is why so many people are eager to get every major decision put into writing.

Verbal agreements are usually not used or in this case highly not recommended, this is because in the legal world, if it isn't written down and notarized, verbal agreements cannot be used for legal reasons. Anyone can make promises but without proper documentation or paper trail, it would hold no value.

There is definitely a difference between verbal agreement and written agreement. Verbal agreements don't seem very solid, and can be manipulated if there isn't proof of the agreement. Written agreements seem a bit more trusting, since there is physical proof, and you know for a fact that this can't be manipulated by the other party because its already documented. I don't think its a good idea to start a project based on a verbal agreement, because again, if this agreement was not documented it can easily be manipulated. And if that was to happen, a lot of time spent on the project would be going to waste. Therefore, if your making an agreement to start a project I think its best to make sure it is documented.

YES you can start your project based on a verbal agreement, but you need to make a prove for this verbal agreement, but if you failed to prove the agreement so you will be a loser. As we learned a verbal contract can be oral or written, but an oral contract is any agreement that two or more parties make based entirely on spoken or orally communicated terms. Currently, emails, text messages and instant worldwide communication, entering into a contract is as easy as making a phone call. Oral or verbal contracts are entirely legal. Even though it is almost always better to enter into a written contract that details the terms of the agreements, oral contracts are allowable under the law.

Although it is possible to begin a project based on a verbal agreements, it is still a very informal method of commitment and is not effectively reinforced. Written agreements are physical evidence of a contract between two or more parties that can efficiently motivate the successful completion of the project. In most cases, there are no consequences for for breaking verbal agreements due to its informality. For this reason, verbal agreements can also be changed to be more convenient or in favor of a specific party. They can be twisted very easily in way that a specific party can reap the most benefits in the agreement. In contrast, written agreements are as good as written in stone once it is approved and signed by each participating group. They ensure that each party is committed to following through with their responsibilities and roles. It also outlines all the criterion and requirements for the project very clearly, providing all the necessary detail. When starting a new project, it is essential to document it through a written agreement.

When it comes to business then verbal contracts should never be considered. Fighting this in court is very difficult when it turned into a he said/she said. One way to prove is the proof expenses and proof of services. The Uniform Commercial Code governs contracts involving the sale of goods. It requires that contracts for the sale of goods over $500 to be in writing. This is a good way to ensure proper contracts are made, but if any cause there is a business offer and acceptance there should be a written agreement. There is no such thing as too much protection.

The risks of starting a new project on just a Verbal Agreement is that there is tremendous room for genuine misunderstandings. The other team may not fully understand the nuances of the contract and because it was orally made there is nothing to look back on to fully understand it. However, if the contract was a written contract it would be easier to follow and there will be less chances of misunderstandings. The written agreement would provide exact parameters to follow and there would be no uncertainty. Also an oral agreement is seen to last a shorter period than a written agreement and that is interesting to note. Most of all oral agreements are extremely hard to prove in legal contract disputes.

For me personally, written agreements are better because it is set in stone and nothing can be forgotten. If a verbal agreement is made, some of the things maybe forgotten by one or all members of the agreement. Projects can be started from verbal agreements but when having a written agreement, the project can be more successful since everything is written down. Verbal agreements can be changed for one's personal benefit because it is very informal and this may hurt the other parties and possibly the company. If a verbal agreement is made for anything, it is better to follow up with a written consent immediately.

I think that oral agreement are often looked upon warily because they are not easily enforceable. Contract that are written are can be easily presented for a legal defense than the oral testimony. It is also difficult to remove contract defects when they are not in writing.

Verbal agreements can be enforced, and are constantly used in the medical field. When a patient cannot make their own decision and their life is in an emergency life-threatening situation that requires certain medical procedures, the guardian of the patient can make a quick verbal agreement in order to save the patient's life as long as the patient did not sign to a "do not resuscitate" document. Usually, written agreement is probably the best to use when starting work or a project, because both parties have a document of when you signed it and if you understood the entire document. Verbal agreements, which can be binding, are less reliable to document and less believable to others when one person breaks the agreement, since it is not in writing.

I agree with cef3 that verbal contracts are difficult to defend in courts in case a dispute comes up between the two parties to an agreement. This, however, does not mean that verbal contracts are not binding. They are binding just like written agreements. The only problem is that they are difficult to enforce in a legal dispute, so I am in full agreement with Chris Vasquez. As to whether it is wise to start a project based on just verbal agreement, my opinion is that it is absolutely okay. However, I am of the opinion that before a person opts to rely on a verbal agreement fully, he or she should be certain that they can provide enough proof in court. One should not rely on a verbal agreement just because they are in good terms with the other party to the contract. Things can go wrong.