[btilly]

Possibly the same way. Both countries have the same common law traditions.

But I'm surprised that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds did not come into play. This was a well-documented verbal contract, but still it was a verbal contract for 24 months. Which is more than a year, and therefore is more than a verbal contract should be able to cover.

[ballenf]

That is why the comment that it would be memorialized in writing was important to the case. The idea being that the writing was enough confirmation of the existence of the verbal contract, irregardless that it contradicted a key point. The key point (no price increases) was confirmed to be part of the verbal contract by the transcript.

In essence you have satisfied SOF by the email and satisfied meeting of the minds on key contractual points (term, price, level of service) through the transcript.