Written agreements are preferable since parties can keep a record of them, they can be submitted as physical evidence in court during disputes, and create a situation where it will be more difficult for one party to unjustly break the agreement without negative consequences. I fail to see an advantage in using verbal agreements over written ones, since having witnesses during a verbal agreement is not enough to protect both parties. Have a written agreement will also urge both parties to consider all terms that may be glossed over during a verbal exchange. It will also facilitate the process of making any revisions or adjustments (such as duration of the agreement) to the original agreement over the course of the partnership between parties.
Both verbal and written consent or agreement has legal standing. However, verbal consenting requires a lot more effort to record and preserve. A written agreement both parties sings the original documents and both keep the documentation. Whereas verbal agreement can be a phone call or a face to face meeting where it may be harder to record from the begging to the end of the agreement. In addition, it is harder to review or revisit when the time comes. However, it is a lot quicker to acquire. Therefore, I believe large contracts should be written and whereas time-sensitive projects or inner projects can be made with verbal agreements.
I would not even consider a verbal agreement related to medical device development. I have already been burned going down that track. A verbal agreement can only be clearly validated if there are witnesses to the agreement, especially good if neutral third party is the witness. The written agreement is the standard for business contract and should remain so. Unfortunately, our era of high stakes profitability and risk means agreements by handshake are something of the past. Moreover, legally, the verbal agreement is harder too prove and may in fact be more expensive to uphold in court.
Hi all,
In the video lecture Dr.Simon mentioned about two terms of contract,Written & Verbal agreement. He said that verbal contract can be legal but what if the due to dispute or other reason the verbal agreement turns to failure. Is there any significant difference between Verbal Agreement & Oral Agreement? How much one should rely on verbal agreement? Is it good to start working on a project just based on verbal Agreement? What are the importance of Written agreement?
If anyone of you had an experience regarding to those questions please share.
Verbal agreements mean that the topic at hand is agreed upon by spoken communication. Personally, I do not believe the can be such a thing as a "PROFESSIONAL" verbal agreement. Verbal agreements usually are made between friends, family, etc. Written agreements are the most accepted form of agreement in any professional setting. They are also called contracts. Contracts are made between two or more parties. In other words, a contract is an agreement that is recorded in writing; thus, it can be legally enforced since all the parties sign it. To sum up, in a professional setting, written agreements are the way to go.
I agree with the previous posts mentioning that a written contract is more useful and reliable than a verbal agreement. Verbal 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. They do not provide solid evidence either. In a written legal agreement, all these criteria are clearly stated and can be much more easily defended in court. They also help prevent misunderstandings or disputes by making the agreement clear from the start. Moreover, there are specific regulations and rules of what may or may now terminate an agreement and it may not be discussed between two parties. This is why it is better to have written agreements in order to protect your company.
The only problem with verbal contracts is the fact that their existence (and their particulars) can be difficult to prove. So, how can you prove that the contract ever existed? You can do this through the actions of the parties involved. Common sense dictates that a person or a business wouldn't deliver the goods or provide a service if an agreement with the other party doesn't exist.
I agree that written agreements are preferred over verbal agreements, especially when it comes to legal disputes in court. However, possible advantages to verbal agreements include ease, convenience, and flexibility. For small agreements without much risk, verbal agreements may be okay, and takes less time than written agreements. Also, for agreements where both parties are unsure about or may be prone to change, a verbal agreement might offer more flexibility than a written agreement. However, I would almost always prefer a written agreement, even if it requires extra effort and time, due to the necessary precautions to take to ensure both parties follow the rules accordingly. Also, people may forget verbal agreements, due to simply being human.
Although recognized as a legal contract, I personally do not think verbal agreements, especially on behalf of a company, should be used. As Professor Simon had also mentioned in the video lecture, there are 5 parts every contract must have, including: Offer and acceptance, consideration, intension to create legal relations, capacity, and formalities. And is should be considered that if any of these terms are not properly met, the contract can be nulled. It would be considerably difficult to provide any evidence of each of these categories in detail in a verbal agreement, and therefore is why I believe this is not the best way to go when doing business. However, this is not to say that you should avoid a verbal agreement with the neighbor that asked if you would like your snowy driveway shoveled for $20. I believe it all comes down to where the responsibility of the agreement lies and if there is a considerable amount of money being invested into this contract, it should be in a written legal agreement.
The biggest difference between the two is that an oral agreement is harder to prove for its existence and must be proved by memory or other evidence since it is not written down. This can create error and mischief and causes disagreements between the parties. It is preferable that contracts should be written in order to have certainty and clarity in everything that you do in the agreement, which does not depend on the memory of the people involved. It also makes things easier legally and when needing to go to court in case of disagreements. I’m not sure whether oral agreements can be recorded or if it is against the law, and if it counts similar to written contracts if they are allowed.
I would not start work without a written agreement. A verbal agreement can be misconstrued, and the details forgotten or tweaked along the way (increase in scope). One person can change their mind later and contradict what they originally agreed to. I personally prefer everything in writing. This way the scope is captured and your business is protected.
The main difference between the two is, as said in many of the responses above, documentation and defendability in court. An oral or verbal agreement is spoken, but unless there is further documentation to support that it did occur it can easily be thrown out. A written agreement is documented. Its a physical representation of a deal or agreement and can be referred back to as well as used to reference the time period in which the agreement was made. Personally, I think any agreement that may be legally disputed should be put into writing and observed via a witness to ensure that there cannot be any manipulation of the agreement.
For court claims reason, it's clear that the documentation is the main difference among the verbal and written agreements. During my previous job, which was service advisor at one of Ford Motor agency, I had to accept verbal agreements from clients because it's been written on the inspection contract that the new maintenance estimations can be approved verbally. However, in the big projects, I would not agree to work without a written agreement.
I would prefer to have a written agreement because it has all the information to be proved legally if there are any problems in the future with the other person. Oral agreements do not have any kind of proofs if it has to be proved legally in case of certain circumstances. In order to avoid such risks, it is always better to have a written agreement for any kind of works.
A verbal contract can include any agreement with words, which includes both oral and written agreements. Because of this, we should compare written contacts to spoken contracts. In every sense, a written contract is the most reliable contract when starting a project. A written contract always refers to a document that outlines an agreement entered into by two parties. These parties might be people, organizations or businesses, and their identities will be specified in the contract. For written contracts to be valid and binding, they need to be signed by both parties. There is outstanding proof of what was agreed upon and what was talked about. A verbal contract is extremely difficult to enforce and can be turned around based on how each party remembers it.
Verbal agreements are oral and are not enforceable by the law nor is it legally binding. Therefore it can be easily dismissed for a number of reasons. A written agreement is documented and therefore is evidence-based. It can be followed up on and verified making it the more efficient way to proceed in a legal manner. I personally think that verbal agreements should be honored but we do not live in a society where that holds weight therefore written is best for important matters.
