Legal Question in Business Law in Connecticut

Re: verbal agrrement

A verbal contract is binding if it meets the usual tests of a valid contract (competent parties, legal subject matter, consideration) and is not one of the kinds of contracts required to be in writing by a law (actually, a group of laws) known as the Statute of Frauds.

Lawyers would refer to them as oral contracts, not verbal contracts.

The availability of witnesses may be helpful in enforcing any kind of contract, but particularly so with oral contracts because of the difficulty otherwise presented in convincing a judge or jury of the terms of the alleged contract, or indeed, of its existence. However, the witnesses have nothing to do with the validity of the contract. They only make it easier to establish the facts.

The Statute of Frauds supposedly invalidates oral contracts for the transfer of an interest in real estate, contracts which cannot be performed in less than a year, contracts for the sale of goods over a certain amount, contracts for services over a different amount, contracts in respect to marriage, certain guaranty agreements, and maybe a couple of others.

However, the Statute of Frauds is riddled with loopholes and exceptions. Whether a particular oral contract can be enforced or not may ultimately boil down to whether the judge thinks a remedy of some kind should be concocted to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Re: verbal agrrement

Hello,

Whether a verbal agreement is binding depends on a the following things:

1. what was the subject matter of the agreement? Contracts for certain things, like real estate, service contracts that cannot be performed within a year, and agreements for the sale of goods for more than $500, must be in writing.

2. was there consideration? i.e., each party to the contract must be giving up something in exchange for getting something. Keep in mind that if one person merely promises to do something and the other person does not compensate the promisor, this is merely a promise and is not enforceable. Compensation is broadly defined and does not need to be monetary.

3. did either party begin performance based on the verbal exchange?

In summary, you should talk to an attorney to find out if your particular agreement is enforceable. As a matter of course, there is no general rule that says that oral contracts are not enforceable, but in practice, it is much harder to establish that the contract existed and what the terms of that contract are.

As far as the witnesses, the witnesses do not establish whether a contract exists, but rather aid in determining the contents of that contract. What I mean is, you can have an oral contract (for certain things) with or without witnesses. Once you have established that an enforceable contract exists, the witnesses can aid in determining exactly what the terms of that contract are.

I apologize for the vague response. If you'd like to supply me with additional information, I can give you a better idea of where you stand in terms of an enforceable contract.

Hope that helps!

Diana

Almost a Contract Might Get You What You Are After

Beyond the question of whether or not you have entered into an enforceable "contract," you should also know that a court will often grant a party some form of relief even when the court finds that there was no contract.

There are many various types of judicial relief available to parties who cannot otherwise meet all the formalistic requirements of having entered into a contract. Without knowing more details about the particular agreement you are seeking to enforce, it is pointless for me to speculate as to whether or not you would also be entitled to seek relief from a court under any of the more common "fall back" claims available to parties who cannot establish each of the formal elements required to prove that a contract was formed.

However, these "fall back" claims (quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, work had and received, account stated...)are rooted in a part of the law that was (in the old English legal system) given over to special courts of "equity" which were only concerned with making things right for citizens who had clearly been done wrong but were otherwise unable to find a specific law that addressed the manner in which they had been caused their particular damage.

Because these alternate remedies that MIGHT be available to you if you are not able to prove a contract are remedies in 'equity' where the courts are generally empowered to "right the wrong" or "do justice," without knowing anything about the facts of your case, I can tell you that if it is clear that you have been screwed, there is probably legal relief available to you regardless of whether or not you can prove that a contract was formed.

For example: Suppose you made an oral agreement to paint someone's house and they stood there and watched you do it, only to say "thanks, but we never had a contract, so go away now." Regardless of whether or not you did have a contract, the court will have several ways to get you all or most of your money.

If, however, you and all your drunk witness buddies were standing around at a bar when the mouthy one of your bunch said he would give you $100.00 to pull the chair out from under one of the bikers over in the corner, I wouldn't count on finding any judge or jury being sympathetic to your case, regardless of how you couched it.