Contract law
Formation
Capacity Offer and acceptance Meeting of the minds2 Abstraction principle4,5 Posting rule1 Mirror image rule Invitation to treat Firm offer Consideration1,4 Implication-in-fact Collateral contract
Defences
Misrepresentation Mistake Threats and unequal bargaining power Illegality and public policy Unconscionability Culpa in contrahendo2 Force majeure Frustration of purpose Impossibility Impracticability Hardship Set-off Illusory promise1 Statute of frauds1 Non est factum1 Unclean hands1 Accord and satisfaction1 Exculpatory clause
Interpretation
Parol evidence3 Contract of adhesion Integration clause Contra proferentem UNIDROIT Principles
Dispute resolution
Choice of law clause Forum selection clause Hague Choice of Court Convention Arbitration New York Convention UNCITRAL Model Law Mediation Singapore Mediation Convention Enforcement of foreign judgments Hague Judgments Convention
Rights of third parties
Privity of contract1 Assignment Delegation Novation Third-party beneficiary
Breach of contract
Anticipatory repudiation Cover Exclusion clause Efficient breach Deviation Fundamental breach
Remedies
Specific performance3 Money damages Liquidated, stipulated, or penal damages3 Rescission
Quasi-contractual obligations
Promissory estoppel1 Quantum meruit1 Unjust enrichment Restitution Negotiorum gestio2
Duties of parties
Duty of honest contractual performance (or doctrine of abuse of rights)6 Duty of good faith (also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith)7 Contract A and Contract B6
Related areas of law
Conflict of laws Commercial law
By jurisdiction
Australia Canada China (mainland) Ireland India Saudi Arabia United Kingdom England and Wales Scotland United States
Other law areas
Tort law Property law Wills, trusts, and estates Criminal law Evidence
Notes
1 Specific to common law jurisdictions 2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions 3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions 4 Specific to the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch and other civil codes based on the pandectist tradition 5 Explicitly rejected by the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 6 Specific to Canadian contract law both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces 7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American Uniform Commercial Code, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to contractual and pre-contractual negotiation
v t e

An oral contract is a contract, the terms of which have been agreed by spoken communication. This is 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 (although the contract itself may be oral). An example of the latter is the requirement that a contract of guarantee be evidenced in writing, which 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 used as a synonym for oral contract. However, since the term verbal could also mean just using words, not only spoken words, the term oral contract is recommended when maximum clarity is desired.

Enforcement

Provided that an oral contract satisfies any requirements imposed by law, such a requirement that contracts for a specific type of transaction be in writing, it is legally enforceable.^[1][2]

For example, in 1984, Getty Oil was sold to Pennzoil in a handshake deal, a lay term for an oral contract, which was binding under New York law. Texaco later made a higher offer, and the company was sold to Texaco. Pennzoil filed a lawsuit alleging tortious interference with the oral contract and, after prevailing in court, was awarded $11.1 billion in damages, later reduced to $9.1 billion plus interest and penalties.^[3]

In a United Kingdom case, RCS Contractors Ltd v. Conway, the parties to an otherwise valid oral contract for construction services disagreed as to whether they had entered a single oral contract for work at three sites, or three separate contracts, one for each work site. Without a written agreement, the court had to examine other evidence to attempt to discern the intent of the parties, ultimately concluding that the parties were operating under a single contract.^[4]