Oral Contract Doesn`t Require Consideration to Be Legally Enforceable

Oral Contract Doesn`t Require Consideration to Be Legally Enforceable: Understanding the Basics

Contracts form the backbone of most business transactions. While written agreements are commonly used to establish legally binding terms between parties, oral contracts are also a common way of doing business. However, many people are under the impression that oral agreements are not enforceable in court. This is far from the truth. In fact, an oral contract can be legally binding and enforceable under certain circumstances, even if it lacks consideration.

What is Consideration?

Consideration is the exchange of something of value between parties to a contract. It is the legal term used to describe the “something of value” that each party is giving up or gaining in exchange for the performance or promise of the other party. Consideration can be anything of value, including money, goods, services, and promises not to do something.

Traditionally, consideration has been a requirement for a contract to be legally enforceable. If there is no consideration, there is no contract. However, more modern interpretations of contract law have recognized that there are certain circumstances where an oral contract can be legally enforceable even if it lacks consideration.

When is Consideration Not Required?

An oral contract can be enforceable even if it lacks consideration when one of the following exceptions applies:

1. Promissory Estoppel: Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine stating that a promise made by one party to another can be legally binding even if it lacks consideration. This means that if one party makes a promise to another, and the other party relies on that promise to their detriment, the promise can be enforced in court.

For example, let`s say that John promises to pay Jane $10,000 for her services even though they didn`t discuss payment beforehand. Jane spends six months working for John and relies on his promise to pay her. If John subsequently refuses to pay, Jane can argue that John`s promise was binding because she relied on it to her detriment.

2. Unjust Enrichment: Unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine stating that if one party receives a benefit from another party without paying for it, and it would be unjust to allow the benefiting party to keep that benefit, the party providing the benefit can recover compensation for it.

For example, let`s say that Sarah agrees to paint Mark`s house for $5,000. Sarah arrives at Mark`s house and begins painting. Mark tells Sarah that he changed his mind and no longer wants her to paint the house. Sarah can argue that she provided a benefit to Mark by beginning the work, and it would be unjust to allow Mark to keep the benefit without compensating Sarah.

In both of these cases, an oral contract lacking consideration can be legally binding and enforceable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, an oral contract doesn`t require consideration to be legally enforceable under certain circumstances. Promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment are two legal doctrines that allow for the enforcement of an oral contract even if it lacks consideration. It`s important to keep in mind that every case is different, and whether an oral contract lacking consideration is enforceable will depend on the specific circumstances involved. It`s always best to consult with a legal expert when considering the enforceability of an oral contract.

Scroll to Top