The answer will depend on all the facts and circumstances involved, such as the evidence of the agreement (notes, emails, witness testimony, etc.). Typically, oral contracts present evidentiary problems and become a matter of one person's word against the other's.
Contracts are agreements that are legally enforceable. A contract is an agreement between two parties that creates an obligation to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. The purpose of a contract is to establish the terms of the agreement by which the parties have fixed their rights and duties. A contract may be legally defined as a voluntary, legally enforceable, agreement made by persons with the proper capacity. It should include: 1) an offer; 2) an acceptance; and 3) consideration, or an exchange of value.
A contract may be express or implied. A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. A contract is an agreement between two parties that creates an obligation to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. The purpose of a contract is to establish the terms of the agreement by which the parties have fixed their rights and duties.
An oral contract is an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only partially written. An oral contract may generally be enforced the same as a written agreement. However, it is much more difficult with an oral contract to prove its existence or the terms. Oral contracts also usually have a shorter time period within which a person seeking to enforce their contract right must sue. A written contract generally provides a longer time to sue than for breach of an oral contract. A fraud claim is subject ot its own statuet of limitations for the deadline to file a claim.
Contracts are mainly governed by state statutory and common (judge-made) law and private law. Private law generally refers to the terms of the agreement between the parties, as parties have freedom to override many state law requirements regarding formalities of contracts. Each state has developed its own common law of contracts, which consists of a body of jurisprudence developed over time by trial and appellate courts on a case-by-case basis.
An unjustifiable failure to perform all or some part of a contractual duty is a breach of contract. A legal action for breach of contract arises when at least one party's performance does not live up to the terms of the contract and causes the other party to suffer economic damage or other types of measurable injury. A lawsuit for breach of contract is a civil action and the remedies awarded are designed to place the injured party in the position they would be in if not for the breach. Remedies for contractual breaches are not designed to punish the breaching party. The five basic remedies for breach of contract include the following: money damages, restitution, rescission, reformation, and specific performance. A money damage award includes a sum of money that is given as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. Parties injured by a breach are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they entered, or the net gain that would have accrued but for the breach. The type of breach governs the extent of damages that may be recovered.
Rescission is the name for the remedy that terminates the contractual duties of both parties, while reformation is the name for the remedy that allows courts to change the substance of a contract to correct inequities that were suffered. In order to have a rescission, both parties to the contract must be placed in the position they occupied before the contract was made. Courts have held that a party may rescind a contract for fraud, incapacity, duress, undue influence, material breach in performance of a promise, or mistake, among other grounds. Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels one party to perform, as nearly as practicable, his or her duties specified by the contract. Specific performance is available only when money damages are inadequate to compensate the plaintiff for the breach.
Courts have held that a party may rescind a contract for fraud, incapacity, duress, undue influence, material breach in performance of a promise, or mistake, among other grounds. In order to prove a fraud claim, it must be shown that the defendant had an intent to deceive. If deception was used to induce another to rely on a promise and such reliance caused harm, it is possible to recover damages. Fraud may be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.
In order to be found liable for fraud, an intent to deceive must be proven. To hold a person liable for fraud in preparing or procuring a contract, it would be need to be shown that they had knowledge of the facts and misrepresented or intentionally concealed them in order to cause you to act in reliance on their representations, and that reliance led to harm.
Promissory estoppel is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract, because one party has relied on the promise of the other, it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement. Promissory estoppel arises from a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forebearance in binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
Detrimental reliance is a term commonly used to force another to perform their obligations under a contract, using the theory of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel may apply when a promise was made; reliance on the promise was reasonable or foreseeable; there was actual and reasonable reliance on the promise; the reliance was detrimental; and injustice can only be prevented by enforcing the promise. Detrimental reliance must be shown to involve reliance that is reasonable, which is a determination made on an individual case-by-case basis, taking all factors into consideration. Detrimental means that some type of harm is suffered. Reasonable reliance is usually referred to as a theory of recovery in contract law. It was what a prudent person might believe and act upon based on something told by another. Sometimes a person acts in reliance on the promise of a profit or other benefit, only to learn that the statements or promises were either incorrect or were exaggerated. The one who acted to their detriment in reasonable reliance may recover damages for the costs of his/her actions or demand performance. Reasonable reliance connotes the use of the standard of ordinary and average person.
In some cases, the court may use its equitable powers to acheive fairness beween the parties and prevent injustice, such as by applying the legal theories of promissory estoppel and detrimental reliance discussed above. In order to prove a person was fraudulently induced to enter a contract, it must be shown the the inducer made a statement that he/she knew was false at the time it was made, and was made to cause another to enter into a contract in reliance on the statement. If the induced party would have entered into the contract without the false promise, this may not apply.
Acceptance of an offer is the expression of assent to its terms. Acceptance must generally be made in the manner specified by the offer. If no manner of acceptance is specified by the offer, then acceptance may be made in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances. An acceptance is only valid, however, if the offeree knows of the offer, the offeree manifests an intention to accept, and the acceptance is expressed as an unequivocal and unconditional agreement to the terms of the offer.
Many offers specify the method of acceptance, whether it be oral or written, by phone or in person, by handshake or by ceremony. Other offers leave open the method of acceptance, allowing the offeree to accept in a reasonable manner. Most consumer transactions fall into this category, as when a shopper "accepts" a merchant's offer by taking possession of a particular good and paying for it at the cash register. But what constitutes a "reasonable" acceptance will vary according to the contract.
704.03 Requirement of writing for rental agreements and termination.
(1) Original agreement. A lease for more than a year, or a
contract to make such a lease, is not enforceable unless it meets the
requirements of s. 706.02 and in addition sets forth the amount of
rent or other consideration, the time of commencement and expiration
of the lease and a reasonably definite description of the premises, or
unless a writing signed by the landlord and the tenant sets forth the
amount of rent or other consideration, the duration of the lease and a
reasonably definite description of the premises and the commencement
date is established by entry of the tenant into possession under the
writing. Sections 704.05 and 704.07 govern as to matters within the
scope of such sections and not provided for in such written lease or
(2) Entry under unenforceable lease. If a tenant enters into
possession under a lease for more than one year which does not meet
the requirements of sub. (1), and the tenant pays rent on a periodic
basis, the tenant becomes a periodic tenant. If the premises in such
case are used for residential purposes and the rent is payable
monthly, the tenant becomes a month-to-month tenant; but if the use is
agricultural or nonresidential, the tenant becomes a year-to-year
tenant without regard to the rent-payment periods. Except for duration
of the tenancy and matters within the scope of ss. 704.05 and 704.07,
the tenancy is governed by the terms and conditions agreed upon.
Notice as provided in s. 704.19 is necessary to terminate such a
(3) Assignment. An assignment by the tenant of a leasehold
interest which has an unexpired period of more than one year is not
enforceable against the assignor unless the assignment is in writing
reasonably identifying the lease and signed by the assignor; and any
agreement to assume the obligations of the original lease which has an
unexpired period of more than one year is not enforceable unless in
writing signed by the assignee.
(4) Termination of written lease prior to normal expiration
date. An agreement to terminate a tenancy more than one year prior to
the expiration date specified in a valid written lease is not
enforceable unless it is in writing signed by both parties. Any other
agreement between the landlord and tenant to terminate a lease prior
to its normal expiration date, or to terminate a periodic tenancy or
tenancy at will without the statutory notice required by s. 704.19 may
be either oral or written. Nothing herein prevents surrender by
operation of law.
(5) Proof. In any case where a lease or agreement is not in
writing signed by both parties but is enforceable under this section,
the lease or agreement must be proved by clear and convincing