What are the laws if there are no wriiten contracts? Is their still a legal bind?

Question

The client had appointed an architect although it has now come out that he was not a proper architect, there was no written contract and the "architect" had been administering the contract on seperate trades basis with no proper contract. So the client terminated the appointment, the "architect is now threateniing to take it further unless he is paid.

Answer 1

"An oral contract is a contract that terms of which have been agreed by spoken communication, in contrast to a written contract, where the contract is a written document. There may be written, or other physical evidence, of an oral contract -- for example where the parties write down what they have agreed -- but the contract itself is not a written one.

In general, oral contracts are just as valid as written ones, but some jurisdictions either require a contract to be in writing in certain circumstances (for example where real property is being conveyed), or that a contract be evidenced in writing (though it may be oral). An example of the latter being the requirement that contract of guarantee be evidenced in writing that is found in the Statute of Frauds.

Similarly, the limitation period prescribed for an action may be shorter for an oral contract than it is for a written one.

The term verbal contract is sometimes incorrectly used as a synonym for oral contract. However, a verbal contract is one that is agreed to using words, either written or spoken, as opposed to an implied contract."

Answer 2

If your non-architect deliberately gave the impression of being an architect and you entered into a contract on that basis, the law wouldn't regard it as a contract at all because it was based on deception. In general, a verbal contract is binding; a written agreement is evidence of a contract but is not itself the contract; but in this case (as I've said) the contract would be invalid whether written or not. If the non-architect is trying to get money out of you on the basis of his claim to a qualification he doesn't have, this could amount to fraud, which is a criminal offence and should be reported to the police. The Royal Institution of British Architects (if you're in the UK) would also be interested in prosecuting anyone who falsely claims to be an architect.

Answer 3

Hi,

In the UK, provided that all the elements of a contract are in place then the contract exists.

Acceptance
Offer
Consideration
Intention to create legal relations
Certainty of subject matter.

If there is a question of "legality" i.e the architect is not really a qualified architect but has informed you that he is for the purposes of obtaining the contract, then the contract could be null and void on the grounds of illegality.

Answer 4

It is a verbal contract that will stand up in law - however as the architect is not actually an architect - the hirer can claim against him for out of pocket expenses and any additional expenses incurred in finding a new ARCHITECT

Answer 5

The architect would have no legal rights at all and could be sued for misrepresentation. It sounds to me as though this person was subcontracting work out. I would write to this person and say that you intend on taking legal action for misrepresentation. Who would employ an architect without a written contract.

Answer 6

since there was no legal contract the architect's threats may be deemed harassment. in any professional arrangement a written agreement (contract) is just common sense. A threatening letter from your own lawyer may be necessary.

Answer 7

If there was a verbal instruction I think you are liable. However if you were misled into believing he was a qualified architect you could argue that he should have made this clear.
I think a verbal contract is binding, but not as binding as a written contract. That is my experience.

Answer 8

In British Law, a verbal contract is as good as a written contract.

Answer 9

if he was appointed on the basis that he was an architect and it was then proven that he wasn't then he would be in breach of contract anyway

Answer 10

Did you want to sue your spouse for violating one of the vows? It's gotta be the obey one. That's a tough one. I would love to sue my spouse and have the court award that he must put the dirty clothes in the hamper and do the dishes. I would have a much better to leg to stand on if I had a court order to enforce this stuff. Especially if he had to chose between spending the night in the pokey and doing the dishes.