[larrys]

Once again, this all depends on the parties and the size of the deal and any past dealings.

I'm not against getting things or putting things in writing. Or having a contract when needed.

My comments relate to the form of that writing and the effort and potential friction vs. what you are trying to protect. Friction which can kill a deal if you have to think out every possibility. Not to mention that it can also work against you.

[Silhouette]

I think the point some of us are trying to make is that if establishing a clear, written understanding at the start of a business deal creates enough friction that it's a problem for anyone, that party should probably be running away from the deal anyway. This is about as universal a truth as you can find in business. Someone might not feel that a written contract is particularly necessary, but if they are actively trying to avoid having one when it's proposed, either they don't know how the game is played or they're out to screw someone later, and you don't want anything to do with either group.

Of course the level of detail in the contract will be proportional to the size of the engagement. A small deal might only need a standard T&Cs sheet and a signature on quick statement of scope and rates. A large deal involving multiple parties and silly amounts of money might need multiple teams of lawyers and several weeks to draw up. But in each case, there is always a level of mutual understanding and it's always written down and signed off by everyone before the job starts.