4 ms·

It‘s funny. In Germany a handshake agreement between individuals is worth nothing but between businesses it‘s enforcable like a written contract.

by tpetry 8y ago

lowry 8y ago
It is more nuanced than that, I guess.
ygra 8y ago
Verbal contracts are binding as well in Germany.
gamblor956 8y ago
We're not in Germany. Contract laws vary by country and by state. In the US, the general law is that verbal contracts are worth the paper they are written on, which is to say, not at all unless other facts/circumstances support the existence of the verbal agreement and its specific terms. Otherwise anyone could claim to have a contract with anyone else. For example, I claim to have had a verbal agreement with Mark Z for the development of a social networking site owned by me but built by him. In the absence of any other facts, no court would agree that such a contract exists. However, maybe I show copies of emails where we discussed the idea for a social networking site before it launched. That's some evidence that a verbal agreement might have existed, but not as to what the terms were. Most likely, the parties would settle without going to trial, simply because Mark wants to proceed with the IPO without the sword of litigation hanging over his head--even though he would very likely win. The marginal cost of winning at trial is not worth the much larger cost of the harm to the IPO. (This is very loosely based on the Winklevoss saga.)
- checkyoursudo 8y ago
  Your generalization is backwards. In general, US contracts do not need paper memorializing. The majority of transactions are not memorialized. Specific types of transaction and certain value thresholds require memorializing. Facts and circumstances are required to support verbal contracts, but in general verbal contracts very much are enforceable.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Yes, of course. I'll ignore the law that I actually learned in law school and in the actual practice of litigating contracts for what some guy said on the internet... There's a reason I brought up the falling apple example. Verbal contracts are enforceable--if they satisfy the same requirements as written contracts. On top of that, the terms of a verbal agreement must be corroborated by other evidence outside of the verbal agreement itself in order to survive litigation--and the trend in the US legal system is to require more supporting evidence.

It‘s funny. In Germany a handshake agreement between individuals is worth nothing but between businesses it‘s enforcable like a written contract.

by tpetry 8y ago

It‘s funny. In Germany a handshake agreement between individuals is worth nothing but between businesses it‘s enforcable like a written contract.

lowry 8y ago

It is more nuanced than that, I guess.

ygra 8y ago

Verbal contracts are binding as well in Germany.

gamblor956 8y ago

We're not in Germany. Contract laws vary by country and by state. In the US, the general law is that verbal contracts are worth the paper they are written on, which is to say, not at all unless other facts/circumstances support the existence of the verbal agreement and its specific terms. Otherwise anyone could claim to have a contract with anyone else. For example, I claim to have had a verbal agreement with Mark Z for the development of a social networking site owned by me but built by him. In the absence of any other facts, no court would agree that such a contract exists. However, maybe I show copies of emails where we discussed the idea for a social networking site before it launched. That's some evidence that a verbal agreement might have existed, but not as to what the terms were. Most likely, the parties would settle without going to trial, simply because Mark wants to proceed with the IPO without the sword of litigation hanging over his head--even though he would very likely win. The marginal cost of winning at trial is not worth the much larger cost of the harm to the IPO. (This is very loosely based on the Winklevoss saga.)

checkyoursudo 8y ago
Your generalization is backwards. In general, US contracts do not need paper memorializing. The majority of transactions are not memorialized. Specific types of transaction and certain value thresholds require memorializing. Facts and circumstances are required to support verbal contracts, but in general verbal contracts very much are enforceable.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Yes, of course. I'll ignore the law that I actually learned in law school and in the actual practice of litigating contracts for what some guy said on the internet... There's a reason I brought up the falling apple example. Verbal contracts are enforceable--if they satisfy the same requirements as written contracts. On top of that, the terms of a verbal agreement must be corroborated by other evidence outside of the verbal agreement itself in order to survive litigation--and the trend in the US legal system is to require more supporting evidence.