Anyone involved in the contract must enter into the agreement without constraint, with full understanding of the conditions and with the intention of complying with those conditions. Most oral contracts are legally binding. There are, however, some exceptions, depending on the design of the contract and the subject matter of the contract. In many cases, it is best to establish a written agreement to avoid litigation. Samuel Goldwyn said, “An oral contract is as good as the paper on which it is written”, but this is often not the case. The vast majority of transactions between individuals and between persons and commercial enterprises are indeed the execution of oral contracts. So is an oral treaty legally binding? Or is it naïve to believe that they are admissible in court? Finally, written contracts are much easier to assert in court. A court can find the legality of a written contract much more easily than an oral agreement, which drastically limits the burden and costs required to establish that a valid contract existed between the parties. Instead, an aggrieved party may focus on the facts about how the other party failed to comply with the end of the agreement instead of arguing about which party fulfilled its part of the agreement and which did not. For an oral agreement to be binding, the elements of a contract in force must be present. To illustrate how the elements of a contract create binding terms in an oral agreement, we use the example of a man who borrows $200 from his aunt to replace a flat tire. If a treaty has been formulated only orally, its conditions can be extremely difficult to implement. Both parties may find it difficult to successfully file a lawsuit in the event of a problem, unless there are witnesses to the agreement that has been reached.
Ideally, an oral contract would have multiple witnesses so that any type of law enforcement can be implemented in practice. Even though oral contracts are sometimes legally binding, you take an unnecessary risk by relying on an oral agreement for everything important. It is always better to be sure and draw up a duly written contract, signed by all contracting parties. The short and simple answer to this question is no. For this reason and for some others described below, a written contract will almost always be easier to enforce than an oral agreement. If there was a written contract signed, there would be much less stress, uncertainty and cost if one tried to prove the agreement. This brings us to the signing of a contract. The problem with oral agreements is that it can be very difficult to prove their existence and prove what the agreed terms are.
. . .