This is a really interesting topic to discuss. There are many pros and cons of having a written agreement versus verbal agreement. Many medical device companies execute a supplier quality agreement with the suppliers on their approved supplier list (ASL). This is a legal written agreement detailing the terms and conditions of the customer to the supplier acceptance criteria of the products. In addition, there may be a challenge to have this execute with the supplier and can be time consuming. At this point, verbal agreement can be useful, but there is a risk involved as there is no documented evidence of the agreed terms and conditions. Due to time constraints, one can start the project on a risk based approach, however it is highly recommended to draft and execute a written agreement.
@rachel, I do not believe a guardians medical decision counts as a verbal agreement as the doctor/hospital is seeking consent to perform an emergency procedure rather than exchange goods. in the case that the procedure is not an emergency, a written informed consent form is signed. How i do agree with you and many others who have mentioned already, verbal agreements, while legal binding, are risky as one party can deny the existence of the agreement, making it more difficult to enforce than a written agreement. written agreements are especially important when considering things such as confidentiality as the specifics of what information can be plainly stated for future recollection in the case of legal mitigation.
Oral agreement is as good as verbal agreement. A significant difference between oral and written contracts is that the time to sue for breach of an oral contract (the statute of limitations) is sometimes shorter.An oral contract is often provable by action taken by one or both parties which is obviously in reliance on the existence of a contract. Written agreement is important because it will protect you from potential legal claims and also help you if it is the other party breached an agreement.
Verbal agreements much be accepted by the law, but I was always taught that “if you don’t have it in writing then it doesn’t mean anything.” This saying comes into use whenever I work on a project. Whenever I have a meeting, I make sure to have meeting minutes sent out to all participants to reinform them of the agreement and disagreements made within the meeting. This comes in handy when months pass by and someone decided to go back on what was discussed in the initial meeting. In these cases, I have written proof to justify the changes made within the project from the consent of the members in the meeting. In this situation, if I did not have a written document stating the agreements then other engineers would have a position to object and delay my project.
Verbal contract
One of the major misconceptions about a verbal contract is that it is the same thing as an oral contract. But really, even a written contract could be considered a “verbal” contract because, well, it uses words.
An oral contract, on the other hand, is a promise that has been plainly spoken and not written down. When someone makes a promise about what they’re going to do and then does not do it, it could be considered a breach of their oral contract.
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.
Written Contracts
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. For this reason, written contracts could be considered more “ironclad” than oral contracts, even though in many cases the two contracts can have the same force of law behind them.
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. It’s not enough, for example, for many employers to simply tell you that you’ve been hired; they like to put it into writing.
The Differences between Verbal and written contracts
In general, it’s better to pursue a written contract because of the reasons we just mentioned. But if all you have to go on is an oral contract, you might still be able to pursue effective litigation because of the broken promise that was made to you.
What’s important, however, is that you understand that it’s important to have some sort of proof that this oral contract took place. If it comes down to one person’s word against another’s, it can be difficult to find the justice you really deserve.
The more to know about contracts, the better able will be to fight off any potential future problems. Both oral and written contracts can carry the force of law.
I feel verbal agreement is the better way and trustworthy too. We are now in the world were even a conversation between a professor and students are being documented if it is via mail. For discussing about something personal life and relationships it is far better to go with oral agreements. But in case of business were dollars will be invested it is better to follow what the paper says. Oral contracts are extremely difficult to defend in court as it is difficult to show all the aspects of a legal contract; such as offer & acceptance, consideration, and full capacity of the agreement. In a written legal agreement these are typically clearly stated and can be much more easily defended in court. As would stated above, a written legal contract is typically much more useful than an oral agreement.
Written agreements are definitely much better than verbal agreement. As most of the participants mentioned here, that written agreements are easier to defend in court because you have a document that is legally binding which is easier to use in court if things went awry. This is also the main reason why documentation is stressed a lot not just in school but in everyday life. A simple example is a receipt which is a proof of purchase where items and prices are listed as well as return and exchange policies are clearly written to protect the merchants and customers if the product is abused and was tried to be returned or if the product is defective and needs to be replaced, respectively.
Oral agreement is limited to words spoken by people. There is no evidence unlike in written agreement. Oral agreements are difficult to defend in court unless there is a proper evidence. Written agreement is always better since there is proof/evidence that can be shown in court in case of any legal disputes.
I believe that written contracts are favorable to verbal contracts because of how much easier it is to enforce and defend that contract. With everything written out, anytime a potential issues regarding the contract arises it is far easier to go to a written agreement than it is a verbal agreement. Documentation is highly stressed in the professional world because it gives you a way to defend yourself in the cases where an issue arises and proof of documentation is required to settle the issues. Verbal agreements are far more difficult to defend in this case and require trust between all parties - something that is difficult to count on.
I would not start any project just based on a verbal agreement. With a written contract you and your team/company have solid evidence about what is needed from you, and any other companies, partners, or extern help that is helping you and this forms a legal relationship. This creates a legal relationship between you and another party. With a written contract both parties are clear on what the objective or object is- each party has to accept this document in writing. While in verbal contracts it makes not always be clear and there is no way to prove it. Hence, in the court of lay, and for a person/company to protect themselves, written contracts should always be completed even after a verbal contract is accepted in order to have something that would hold up in the court of law.
Generally speaking, most contacts can be either written or oral and legally enforceable, however there are several types of agreements which have to be in writing. I listed them below.
1. Real estate sales
2. Agreements to pay someone else's debts
3. Contracts that take longer than one year to complete
4. Real estate leases for longer than one year
5. Contracts for over a certain amount of money (depending on the state);
6. Contracts that will last longer than the life of the party performing the contract
7. A transfer of property at the death of the party performing the contract.
The reason why these agreements can not be oral agreements is that oral contacts are very difficult to enforce since there's no clear record of offer,consideration and acceptance .
There is a difference between a contract and an agreement. An agreement simply refers to parties agreeing to do an action while a contract includes the agreement but is legally binding and can be part of a law suit. With this, there is a great difference between a verbal contract and a written contract. An oral contract is an agreement at which two or more parties have agreed to different conditions. However, this would be difficult to prove and such during a law suit without a proper witness. On the other hand, a written contract is an agreement at which the points and conditions of the agreement are written on paper and can be used as evidence. I think it's common sense that written contracts are much better for documentation purposes. We've talked so much about the different types of documents and it's pretty obvious that the more responsible thing to do is have a written contract. It is also important to avoid miscommunication and by having a written contract, this can be avoided.
The main difference is that written can be proven in court while oral might be little harder to do so unless you have a witness. Even then it might be tough. I don't think it is wise to start up a business venture with oral or verbal agreement.
Verbal contracts are hard to defend in court and are thus not quite as actionable. Generally, if it is important and there are risks associated with one party backing out, it goes in a written contract. If breaking the contract is not associated with a lot of risk, then it is fine to only use a verbal contract. For example, if someone backing out would cost you $100, it is not important enough to include in a written contract. In fact, I would just use a verbal contract. If it is broken, I am only out $100 but now I know that this partner does not hold up and cannot be trusted. The main distinction between the usage of the two is risk associated with worst-case scenario. As a leader, you can use a verbal contract as a scouting tool. What are your opinions on what is too much risk for a verbal contract?
When entering into a contract, I would dissuade one from relying on a verbal agreement. A contract is similar to meeting minutes if it's not written in the contract, it did not happen. I've seen countless situations where people relied on someone's word and were burned by it. There used to be a time when you shook hands with someone, looked them in their eyes and gave them your word something would happen and their word was reliable. That doesn't happen as much now. Get everything in writing so that someone's "selective memory" can't harm you in the long run.
