An oral contract is an oral agreement that can be legally binding. Like a written contract, the parties enter into an agreement to take or not an obligation. In February 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that an oral agreement between a real estate agent and a developer that prioritized the payment of the real estate agent`s commission should be upheld. What I found interesting about this case and important to all of us was why the dispute existed and how it could have been avoided. How many of us have made an oral agreement with a friend or colleague who told us that we don`t need a written agreement because our friendship was so strong and would never deteriorate to the point where differences were not resolved? Since human nature is as it is, what other explanations or rationalizations (for example.B. Time, money, etc.) was it proposed to justify the absence of a written agreement before the transaction was concluded? Was it just the optimism and enthusiasm around the company that made us believe that everything was going to work in a positive way? There are two main differences between an oral contract and a written contract. The first and most obvious is that an oral contract is an oral agreement. The second is that oral contracts are issued, which means that there is no further evidence that they were made outside the parties or witnesses who heard them. The other problem that often arises in the treatment of oral agreements is the status of fraud.

In short, this status requires that certain types of agreements be in writing. Therefore, if the oral contract includes one of the legal elements prescribed by law, it is not legally binding. The status of the object of the fraud is explained below. Therefore, the courts prefer that the parties formalize their agreements in writing (i.e.: A written contract). In this way, in the event of a future dispute over the terms of the contract, there is concrete evidence that shows what the parties have agreed and, possibly, what are the intentions that were defined during the initial formation of the oral contract. The Supreme Court did not approve the Court of Appeal in favour of Mr. Devani. There is no doubt that the parties intend to create legal relationships and Mr Wells understands Mr Devani`s right to commission. . . .