In the future, you should consider immediately following an oral contract with a letter or email. This way you can receive it in writing, just in case something serious happens again. Unlike written contracts, oral agreements are much more complex to provide evidence, so it`s a good idea to get an opinion. However, as a general rule, civil law is largely uniform in the acceptance of extrinsian evidence, such as oral agreements, in order to prove the intentions of the parties when performing the contract.  The absence of formal requirements in day-to-day transactions is common in civil jurisdictions and, where terms are considered ambiguous, they must be interpreted in accordance with the subjective intentions of the parties and may take into account practices and customs.  For an oral agreement to be binding, the elements of an existing contract must be in place. To illustrate how the elements of a contract create binding terms in an oral agreement, we use the example of a man who borrows $200 from his aunt to replace a flat tire. In the case of oral contracts, these generally have a shorter limitation period than written contracts. This is due to the need to provide fresher evidence and testimony. If two or more parties reach an agreement without written documentation, they draw up an oral agreement (formally called an oral contract). However, the authority of these oral agreements may constitute a certain grey area for those who are not familiar with contract law.
“An oral contract is not worth the paper on which it is written.” – Samuel Goldwyn, film producer Before asking if your oral contract will be upheld in court, ask yourself if you can resolve the dispute by alternative means. In the common law world, oral contracts are governed by the Parol Evidence Rule, one of the oldest rules of evidence. Its effect is to prohibit testimonials used to contradict, vary, supplement or be deduced from the conditions of a valid written contractual document, designated by the parties as their final agreement.  In practice, the nature of the testimony prohibited by the rule relates to oral statements or agreements and practices before or after the conclusion of the written contract. Many oral contracts are legally binding, but the possibility of a party not respecting its commitment still exists; This is the reason why people often prefer to get their agreements in writing. Whether you think your dispute will end in court, your first step to proving an oral contract should be to talk to a lawyer. Legal uncertainty resulting from the memory of a person on which agreements and oral statements are based, as well as the risk of lying, fraud or perjury, are among the main rights behind the rule.  Other rationales are presented under two approaches. The “consent” approach recognizes that the parties intend to make the letter a manifestation of their final agreement superior to all previous agreements.  The quality of evidence approach recognizes that a written agreement carefully crafted to reflect the intentions of the parties should be given more consideration and weighted than any other agreement or agreement between the parties.  The goal is to ensure that weaker evidence cannot alter or replace stronger written evidence.
 In many cases, oral treaties provide a sufficient basis for establishing strong long-term relationships. . . .