Since you know so much about this subject why did you bother to ask here?
You also can't have a binding verbal contract for the sale of real estate either. Your SOF example doesn't work. If you're going to sell your house, your contract isn't enforceable until it's on paper. It doesn't matter how many verbal contracts or promises you make (unless you want to get some kind of promissory estoppel). Telling people you have a contract because it is in writing does not create a verbal contract. Look, verbal contracts are just that, they are verbal contracts; they are not written. There is probably very little substantive difference in a verbal contract and an oral contract. A court isn't going to look at the difference between a "verbal/oral" whatever you want to call it when determining a remedy unless the case implicates the SOF. In that case, there is no K if you have a verbal OR oral contract.
Go pick the bone with your lawyer and quit being such a little female dog on here.
Jimmyjohn, you should be embarassed because you didn't actually read anything I wrote, that much is entirely obvious. I don't know everything about the subject, don't be so cavalier. I am insulted that you call me a "little female dog" when your entire post is entirely not only inherently idiotic but each and every thing you've said was already said by me -- you aren't correcting anything, you're restating what I said and then telling me I'm wrong. Why don't you grow up instead of attempting to attack me personally? You just dived into a pool not realizing I had already emptied it of water.Reading is fundamental.
You write:"You also can't have a binding verbal contract for the sale of real estate either."
I wrote in previous posts:
"You cannot have a binding oral contract for real estate transactions
, or for that matter an oral contract that exceeds a certain monetary value. You must have a written contract for those agreements exceeding the statutory ceiling for an oral contract. The UCC has specific codes regarding oral contracts under the Statute of Frauds. "
"Ergo, if I was to tell you I had an oral contract to sell my house, you can immediately determine it would be invalid and unenforceable.
You write:"There is probably very little substantive difference in a verbal contract and an oral contract."
What you wrote is a truism, don't feel proud. On a similar avenue, I wrote a paraphrased a usage by Words and Phrases under the heading "Verbal Contracts."
"There is no substantive difference between a written contract and a verbal contract
; except one is on paper and the other is not" (I took some liberty with that as I'm going off of memory)"
When you write:"Look, verbal contracts are just that, they are verbal contracts; they are not written."
I hate to tell you this especially if you speak English as a first language and consider yourself intelligent, written contracts are still verbal contracts
. The definition of "verbal" is not limited to
spoken word, just "of words, or loosely
, of spoken word" Words can be spoken or written and are still words and verbal regardless of what form they take
. Something non-verbal would be grunts, squeals and pictures depicting words or situations. Something non-verbal isn't something written. LEARN ENGLISH. If you disagree with me you can prove it for yourself with any of these popular resources: Black's Law Dictionary and West's Encyclopedia of American Law or for quick reference, head to wikipedia's Contract section. The resources of the Law Library are there to help you not seem completely asinine
When you write:"A court isn't going to look at the difference between a "verbal/oral" whatever you want to call it when determining a remedy unless the case implicates the SOF"
I had already written above:
"Oral and written contracts are both express contracts and for type of REMEDY that is all of what matters. However, the EASE of attaining the intended remedy
depends on whether you are capable of substantiating the contract to the level required by any given court.A written contract is obvious instantiation of a duty by the parties to perform. An oral contract must have the significant crux of it substantiated by overt action or in writing or the contract cannot stand because you cannot prove duty
– especially if the other person tells the it never happened and that you are lying."
Finally, please provide any evidence you can WHY you thought this:"Telling people you have a contract because it is in writing does not create a verbal contract."
That is by far the stupidest comment I have ever read on these boards!
I'm done with you jimmyjohn unless you have anything credible to say in your defence.
Slacker -- trust me I understand that. I completely understand that this level of scrutiny will not serve any real courtroom purpose. You are very right, there are many people who use the terms interchangeably. They are often used indiscriminatly and in most situations there is no qualitative difference in application -- they can, in circumscribed situations be synonymous. However, as my example stated in the last post: verbal is an ambiguous label for a contract. The only thing we can determine of the nature of any contract by anyone saying it is verbal and different than written
is that some portion greater than zero percent is not in writing, you CANNOT conclude that it is 100% spoken, oral, parol and that there is no writing if someone just tells you it is verbal -- you can infer and you can inductively assume, like Jimmyjohn did. That is the major difference between every nickle and dime lawyer out there and the legal scholars, very few people care. I am by no means even close to a legal scholar but at least I care about getting it right. Am I entirely correct? Probably not, and probably not by a long shot. However, if I am asking a question and someone cannot answer it, a petty "why are you bothering to even ask it?" says, between the lines, "I can't answer you so I'm just going to complain."
My question was and still is: I was told that I was WRONG, incorrect, for having said I had an oral contract. Am I wrong and if so, why?
Conceivably, both starter and majorporcupine were answering on the level that regardless of me saying oral or verbal, it is either an express contract or implied contract. If that was the case entirely in a nutshell, I wouldn't have been told I was incorrect. Hence, there is obviously another, further, stage of analysis required.
I was dissatisfied with the specificity of their answer and replied to ask for further analysis on a subjective level that would lead to any understanding of why I could conceivably be told I was wrong.
Jimmyjohn has approached it with one sentence: "A court isn't going to look at the difference between a 'verbal/oral' whatever you want to call it." While I am sure that is the truth, it is completely inapplicable to my problem. Someone did look at the difference, the legal counsel I approached. He told me it was different and that I was incorrect in making my distinction. Whether a court would look at the difference is not applicable to our current situation. This is similar to you bringing evidence in court that is immaterial to your case.