Yes I think that there is a difference between a verbal and a written contract. A written contract can be more in depth where one party will take more time and room to outline some rules, agreements and restrictions in the contract. The written agreement will also be there forever, where both parties can go back and look at exactly what they agreed on. In a verbal contract words can be misperceived, and when arguments happen or when one party wants to bring in the legal system a written contract will be much better to refer back to and defend ones original claims. Through lengthy written contracts more details can be set up to go over all necessities, rather than having a 30 minute verbal conversation where both parties agree at the end. Verbal contracts can lead to untrustworthy people using you or turning back against their agreement to get the benefit of the doubt. I do not think you should start fully working on a project because of a verbal agreement because the other party can still back out or change things. You can start planning but I do not think actual progressive work should be done until a written contract is looked over and signed.

I noticed that no one talked about a recorded phone call/video call. I'm not sure which it would count under. Technically its not written, pushing my assumption of it being an verbal agreement. However, it is easily proven, especially in court, by playing the recording for whoever is arbitrating seeing as it is a physical recording. That is the main aspect of a written agreement. In this technological age, it's easier now more than ever to record conversations. Do you believe those recordings are verbal or written agreements or neither? What are your opinions?

I agree because at first when I read what kbs27 said I was very confused because they used verbal and oral and I assumed they were both the same. But as you have stated they are not because verbal can also mean written. I believe that to stop the confusion and avoid trouble written agreements should always be used. Oral agreements are only as good as the people making them. If you make an oral agreement it is not easy to go back and say this happened because they isn't much proof besides the people who were there. Written agreements on the other hand always have proof because it is written down and then usually signed off meaning they agree with it. So agree that oral agreements should be compared with written agreements and that written agreements are almost always better.

I do not understand why oral and written can both be defended in court. I assumed since a written agreement is a piece of paper and has signatures meaning that the terms written above are agreed with there is really no way to dispute it. Whereas with oral agreements someone just has to say they did not agree with it and then there is really no way to prove that they did unless the conversation was recorded. With oral agreements its all by word of mouth and they can easily be changed at any moment where as the written agreements are copied and saved so changing them will be very difficult.

Verbal means any communication that involves words, which means that oral and written agreements are both verbal agreements. I think you meant "what is the difference between Oral and Written Agreements?" An oral agreement is harder to prove because it is based on communication between two or more parties. There must be agreement and consistency in the statements made by both parties regarding the terms of the agreement. Many witnesses will be required to corroborate the oral agreement. If there are any inconsistencies, it could be caused by failure to remember some parts of the agreement or one party may be intending to deceive or lie. It's always best to have a record of the agreement so that there is no confusion between the parties as to what the terms of the agreement are and in a court case, it definitely helps for the judge to view so that he/she can make a determination. It will expedite the court case. Written agreements are the better option so that there is no room for confusion or any way to lie about the agreement in a court of law. Verbal agreements shouldn't be used, especially for big projects. I think that you should always use a written agreement in every case. It may not be as simple and quick as an oral agreement;however, having a written agreement will save a lot of time and energy later on and prevent any legal issues from arising.

Oral contract is formed by verbal agreement like word of mouth and comes about when two people speak to each other. Written agreement assures that both the parties know the exact terms of the contract and provide proof of the agreement. It is better to have a written agreement since there are less chances of understanding about the terms and conditions of the agreement. A written agreement contains the identity of the parties, identification of the subject matter and terms of agreement and a statement of consideration. I think it is better to start the project on written agreement. It gives a legal agreement between you and the other party. Written agreement provides a proof of what was the agreement between you and the other party. It prevents from the future misunderstanding or disputes by making the agreement clear since its inception. It also reduces the risk of the disputes regarding the responsibility, timeframe. It also specifies how the contract can be ended.

It should all depend on what the agreement is being made about. I hope we are not talking about an agreement that involves a medical device creation. If this has to do with a medical device I will strongly suggest the contract be written in that medical devices often involve the human. The format of other types of contract agreements can be dictated by the value of what is involved and the reliability and trustworthiness of the contractors. To be sure what is being contracted has no complications in the long run, I will just make life easy for me - I will demand a written contact. It's easier to work with a written contract than with a verbal contract; unless, of-course all involved are family members who will be unlike to make trouble later.

The difference between or verbal and written agreements is that written agreements definitely easier to find and use as proof if something goes wrong or to show the other person what’s in the fine print when there is a disagreement. With a verbal agreement, its very hard to remember what the other person said exactly and can lead to confusion sometimes. A lot of people above explained its easier to back up a claim with a written agreement which is true. A verbal agreement just leads to a lot of hassle. I believe a verbal agreement can help with starting up a project but eventually it should have a written agreement for future purposes. A written agreement helps both parties with what should be done by each person and what lines not to cross.

I think it's quite clear that it is always more important to have an agreement transcribed into writing rather than have it established verbally, especially when occurring between two aspiring companies. A verbal agreement in this case can result in a major conflict if both companies are from different countries in which dialects can cause specific terms to be disregarded or taken out of context. If however, two international companies share a successful working history, then they can simply hire translators or a notary at any point to ensure their contract is fulfilled on both ends. A written agreement on the other hand is more set-in-stone as it is physically signed by both entities and can be presented as valid evidence in the court of law.

A verbal agreement is just as legally binding as a written one, however verbal contracts are more difficult to prove should an issue arise that is brought to the court of law. This type of incident will most likely require evidence to be presented to support any verbal claims made, and would likely shatter a working relationship between two companies. Why might a verbal agreement have equal legal priority over a written one when verbal contracts clearly have a disadvantage at understandability/consideration? Why might two companies chose to negotiate verbally instead of in writing? In what ways can a company prove a verbal contract if nothing is in writing?

Reference:
"Is a Verbal Agreement Legally Binding?" Sharrock Pitman Legal, 17 June, 2016

I think there are some significant differences between Verbal Agreement & Oral Agreement. Let's firstly suppose we take the form of verbal agreement, then we need to consider how the two parties should make the verbal statement on agreement in an official way. This is not easy since many issues including whether the recordings are allowed by the law, who should be the third party witness, and the mutual recognition of a verbal expression of a term used in the conversation, are still undecided. Especially this will lead to a possibly huge trouble when the third issue happens and one party involved rely too much on this statement and find out it is too late and expensive to drop out. But in written format, every word must be formal and has unique and clear meaning under one context that won't cause divergence in later period. Based on this, the written agreement should be much safer for a contract.

Both of these agreements can be enforced with valid evidence to back it up in case of any allegations held. However the main difference between these types of agreements is the chance of an individual not sticking to their word in a verbal agreement. Verbal agreements can be just as valid as a written argument, as long as there is evidence to prove it; e.g. a voice recording. However, a written agreement has no chance of being edited and can be seen by all the employees involved, making this a easier technique when forming contract agreements.

In any situation I believe that a written contract is necessary. The difficulty in proving an oral contract is that you must rely on the memory of the parties and other evidence. Depending on the memories of people allows one to be susceptible to error and bias. It is better to have the agreement written down where it cannot be changed without permission. And in court, I believe it would be difficult to prove an oral contract over a written one.

I agree with most of your point, and I think not only with the contractor but even sometimes with internal department and even members from the same team. You need a kind of documentation and often it is hard to document or prove a verbal agreement. Written agreement always a good option to protect your self as well. I had experience that some of my team members say something and denied it later. So I start to ask for email even after oral discussion. And that's why meeting minutes Also important because it is considered as a written proof. SO same idea for contractor or agreement with companies or partners. it is always good to have a written agreement in my opinion.

Both agreements are valid evidance for backup. However, the written agreement is better in terms of defending your self comparing to the oral agreement. The oral agreement is hard to provide a prove that this term was actually listed within the agreemen and there is a chance of an individual not sticking to their word in a verbal agreement. While, the written it's solid and everything is clear in case of any issues. Written hard to change what's states in it once it's written unlike the verbal agreement.

I agree with everyone that both written and verbal contract are important and that written contract is more powerful than verbal contract unless it is recorded because they can searched and found as evidence. Written and verbal recordings are documented and stored in files that state an agreement between two individuals or groups. I believe any contract agreement must be some form that can recollect the agreement whether recordings or written paper, not he said or she said but evidential proof.