3 ms·

I don't know how things work in your country, but in mine in the abscence of a written agreement the oral agreement becomes binding. Since you told the clerk th

by Joeri 13y ago

I don't know how things work in your country, but in mine in the abscence of a written agreement the oral agreement becomes binding. Since you told the clerk that you would take the document home to sign and then never contested it afterwards even while paying for the service, a judge could find that you implicitly agreed to all of its terms through oral agreement.

jasonm23 13y ago
That sounds pretty shaky, there was no implicit agreement to sign under any circumstances. There's also the fact he took it away with him under the proviso that he's going to study it first, and then fax back the signed agreement. The very fact that he did not fax back the agreement would be a pretty difficult argument to counter.
- logicallee 13y ago
  No, the fact that he started paying is a pretty difficult argument to counter. I think, in general, if two people negotiate on given terms and then start acting as if they had agreement (guy gives him the storage locker, OP starts paying for it) that's pretty good evidence of the contract existing. As far as I understand, this often overcomes some kind of technical problem with the instrument in question. (For example in this case the lack of a signature, only oral agreement.) If it weren't this way, then mutual misunderstanding (for example the actual contract two parties signed is simply flawed or doesn't state what they think it states) would preempt the terms the parties agreed to; moreover, it would mean that you could totally distort the reality of what the parties actually started doing (how they behaved) by narrowly technically reading the paper instead of the agreement. I also think this is the source of common-law marriage: if two people act as if they're married, that's good enough after a while, even if the actual instrument is missing or flawed in some way.
qwerta 13y ago
Not just oral agreement, but also payment is binding. By giving cc number and taking the keys he showed clear intention to use the storage.

by Joeri 13y ago

jasonm23 13y ago

That sounds pretty shaky, there was no implicit agreement to sign under any circumstances. There's also the fact he took it away with him under the proviso that he's going to study it first, and then fax back the signed agreement. The very fact that he did not fax back the agreement would be a pretty difficult argument to counter.

logicallee 13y ago
No, the fact that he started paying is a pretty difficult argument to counter. I think, in general, if two people negotiate on given terms and then start acting as if they had agreement (guy gives him the storage locker, OP starts paying for it) that's pretty good evidence of the contract existing. As far as I understand, this often overcomes some kind of technical problem with the instrument in question. (For example in this case the lack of a signature, only oral agreement.) If it weren't this way, then mutual misunderstanding (for example the actual contract two parties signed is simply flawed or doesn't state what they think it states) would preempt the terms the parties agreed to; moreover, it would mean that you could totally distort the reality of what the parties actually started doing (how they behaved) by narrowly technically reading the paper instead of the agreement. I also think this is the source of common-law marriage: if two people act as if they're married, that's good enough after a while, even if the actual instrument is missing or flawed in some way.

qwerta 13y ago

Not just oral agreement, but also payment is binding. By giving cc number and taking the keys he showed clear intention to use the storage.