It is therefore certain that no credible complainant could be tried in an attempt to impose an alleged 20-year verbal agreement for the joint development of millions of properties, if the planned order for the TBD property was left. Indeed, the terms of an agreement must be precise enough that „justice can give teeth to the terms agreed by the parties when one party tries to keep them against the other.“ At the same time, the New York Law tolerates some uncertainty in binding agreements and allows courts to provide essential conditions that are missing where such conditions can be provided „objectively.“ Similarly, the case law has narrowly interpreted the status of New York fraud and implemented oral agreements that, at first glance, may seem unworkable. The combination of these factors gives applicants leeway to assert contractual rights that are not returnable on the basis of oral agreements. Whatever its technical legitimacy, an oral agreement is difficult (and expensive) to impose. A written contract is always better at protecting the parties because it clearly and invariably describes the intentions and duties of the parties. While it will take time and effort in advance, a written contract can help avoid problems later. Most oral contracts are legally binding. There are a few exceptions, however, depending on the design of the agreement and the purpose of the contract. In many cases, it is best to draft a written agreement to avoid litigation. A contract does not always need to be concluded in writing to be applicable in New York. If the requirements required by NY Law for the creation of a contract (offer, acceptance, reflection, intention to be bound and mutual consent) exist, it is not important that the conditions have not been set on paper. Therefore, an oral agreement that meets all of these requirements is an enforceable contract in New York. A contract may also be effectively implied on the basis of the facts, circumstances and conduct of the parties – that is, if the parties act as if they have entered into a contract, it is likely that a court will determine that a binding contract has been created.
Trade parties often believe that contractual cases – at least „real“ and deserving cases involve a written agreement. Written contracts are certainly what our clients and transaction partners usually give us when business disputes are in dispute. Most of us remember more than one case where the parties endlessly informed the correct construction of a sentence in a long-term agreement that seems to be responsible for any small thing related to the possible interpretation of that sentence. Finally, the treaties are united and there is no agreement without mutual agreement on material conditions. This limited derogation is within the scope of the largest exception, namely that the Fraud Act does not apply to agreements that „can be implemented within one year.“ See NY GOB 5-701 (a) (1). Although the aunt can prove that she lent money to her nephew with bank statements showing that $200 was transferred to her nephew on the day in question, she still has no physical evidence that he agrees to repay. He might even deny making such a promise (by perjuring himself). This exception has been applied by New York courts in a variety of contexts, from the violation of a goods delivery agreement to oral joint venture agreements – even when they apply to real estate (which normally must be reduced to the letter).