English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I entered into an agreement with another individual orally (mistake). Therefore, I cannot produce a document showing what we each agreed to. However, I can argue that we did have an agreement because we actually carried it out over many months. What legal concept is that?

2007-11-13 13:44:39 · 4 answers · asked by mukwonago53149 5 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Actually, I think this is called an implied-in-fact contract. So, would this contract be enforceable if it deals with real estate (paying rent on a joint lease)?

2007-11-13 13:49:45 · update #1

4 answers

Your way around the problems noted above are in fact grounded in the concept "unjust enrichment".

It is also known as "quasi contract", implied in fact contract, etc, but it is strictly speaking, not a contract theory, but rather one found in equity.

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment

2007-11-13 14:11:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Lots of legal concepts allow oral contracts. Contracts don't have to be in writing unless they fall within the statute of frauds (with a few exceptions). Outside of that, contracts don't even have to be expressed orally. They can also be implied by an act or performance of the terms of the contract. As long as you can prove to the court that the other party acted in a manner that would imply an expression of wanting to be bound by that contract then they will enforce it or award a monetary remedy. I think that what you are kind of look for is "a contract implied by act or performance."

All contracts having interest in real property must be in writing to be enforced. That falls within the statute of frauds.

Here is a very short explanation of some contract law principles.

2007-11-13 21:56:28 · answer #2 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 0 0

That's common contract law.

In most cases, verbal contracts are every bit as enforceable as writen ones. The problem isn't the validity of the contract, it's proving that it exists. If the two of you were ating as if the contract existed, that's good evidence that it does.

Now, a law called the "Statute of Frauds" sets out types of contract that MUST be in writing to be enforceable. What they are depends on your State.

Richard

Answer to edit..... No, it's not an implied contract. That's when people act as if a contract exists even though they never agreed to one. You have an expressed contract, it's just verbal.

Problem though.... in MOST States, real estate contracts are one of the types of contract that must be in writing to be valid.

Richard

2007-11-13 21:49:50 · answer #3 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 1 0

Quid pro quo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

2007-11-13 21:49:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers