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