Among other things, the accused sought a summary judgment expressly prohibiting the licence to sign 1082 oral agreements extending the expiry date of the order. The defendants also argued, without evidence, that they had not reached an oral agreement on the extension of the expiry date of vera`s last farmer. Referring to Floyd v. Title Exchange – Pawn of Anniston, Inc., 620 2d 576 (Ala.1993), also asserted that The Money Tree`s possession of the certificate of ownership of the Colemans` car constituted constructive possession of the Colemans` car by The Money Tree and that the accused could not have unfairly taken possession of the Colemans` car. While the recording, one of the Colemans` exhibits, contains a photocopy of the face of the Colemans` title certificate, the recording shows no confirmation for The Money Tree. In support of the accused`s request for summary decision, the accused filed only the jointly executed wagers by the Colemans and the pledges executed by Vera alone. First, a contract is a legally enforceable agreement to do (or not do) a particular thing. The keywords in this definition are “legally enforceable.” Many of us agree to do something or not to do something almost every day, but if we do not keep our word, we cannot be forced to abide by our agreement. Some treaties in some states may be oral, but then it is the word of one person against someone else`s. Oral chords are easily controversial and very difficult to enforce. A marriage is an oral contractual agreement that is broken every day. So what makes a treaty legally applicable? The requirement of mutual consent (also known as mutual consent, mutual consent or assembly of spirits) means that the parties must approve the provisions of the treaty.
In other words, there must be a mutual will to conclude a treaty. A person cannot be forced or forced to enter into a contract. All contracting parties must act on their own. Many oral contracts are legally binding, but the possibility that a party will not respect its commitment still exists; That`s why people often prefer to make their deals in writing. We would like to clarify that we do not find in the complaint document, in the factual findings of the court or in the evidence that the accused was guilty of fraud or wrongful conduct, which should be used to prevent him from embodying the law of fraud as a defence. The worst thing that can be said of him is that he deliberately “broke the agreement for the sole purpose of profit and because he felt that the law was powerless to force him to keep the faith,” as the Court`s factual findings assert. We believe that the case is fairly within the above cases and is not deterred from asserting the invalidity of the oral agreement on the grounds that it is contrary to the fraud law.