Legal Question in Business Law in California

Re: validity of verbal contracts

OF course it is; as long as you can prove what the terms are, which is difficult in 'he said, she said' arguments. If it is worth fighting over, hire a good attorney and help him with proof. Feel free to contact me if interested, and it is in SoCal courts.

Re: validity of verbal contracts

Usually. There are some types of contracts which have to be in writing, but most can be formed verbally.

There are several requirements any contract has to meet, but that is true whether the agreement is written down or not. An oral contract may be defective because it fails to meet one of these requirements, but the problem would be the content of the agreement and not the fact that it was made orally.

Aside from the few types of contract I alluded to earlier, being made orally will not invalidate an otherwise proper contract.

Re: validity of verbal contracts

In most cases verbal contracts are binding, for example contracts regarding an interest in real property of more than a year must be in writing. The problem is proving the terms of the oral agreement. It usually turns into one person's word against the other's.

Re: validity of verbal contracts

An oral contract is valid unless it is one that is required to be in writing by the statute of frauds [e.g. concerinng real estate, assuming the debt of another, cannot be performed within one year, etc]. An oral contract is entitled to enforcement like a written contract. The benefit of a written signed contract is that the judge is able to rely on written document that identifies the terms of the agreement before the dispute arose. Problem with oral contracts is that the opposing party will generally lie about the terms and/or existence of the agreement. Prepare yourself accordingly.

Re: validity of verbal contracts

To avoid confusion, it is better to call them "oral" contracts than "verbal" contracts. The law uses the terms "oral" and "written." In a sense, "verbal" means "using words" rather than "spoken," so both written and oral contracts are verbal unless you use pictograms.

In addition to written contracts and oral contracts, which together would be considered express contracts, the law recognizes "contracts implied in fact" where there is no express agreement between the parties, either oral or written, but a contract can be inferred from the parties' conduct. Such contracts are not common, but neither are they especially rare, and they are enforced when shown to exist just like oral and written contracts.

I agree with the three previous answers describing contracts that must be in writing in order to be enforced.