A verbal contract is just as legally binding as a written contract. It's just that most people don't have authorized audio/video recordings of these kinds of interactions.
Technically speaking, a recorded verbal contract isn't simply spoken word - it is a matter of record. It's just that the record is an audio file instead of a piece of paper.
About 11 years ago I did a short stint as a customer support bloke for a telco here in Australia. Recorded verbal contracts were the new fashion, and made life easier for switching phone companies. But every 'verbal' recording started with boilerplate stating that this was a recorded conversation, and constituted a contract. The content was specific points, like in a paper document. It was not a casual conversation. Things may have changed here in the meantime, but that's the way it was then.
I also think that a unilateral audio recording wouldn't stand in a lot of places, given that it's illegal in some places to record a private conversation without informing the other party.
Wow, thanks for the link. That's really interesting. Most of those seemed like pretty obvious safety stops, except for the $500 in goods maximum. That one sort of renders verbal contracts useless in nearly all cases, unless I'm misunderstanding.
Unless there's a contract signed at the start that says "no verbal agreement in this process counts as a contract".
Note, that's 100% true (clarifications may stand, IANAL), but I wouldn't be surprised if the VC took steps to ensure no deal was done until the paper was signed.
> A verbal contract is just as legally binding as a written contract.
This is the general principle in Common Law taught to law students in Contracts 100, but it really depends on the subject of contract and jurisdiction.
For example, many jurisdictions have legislation requiring all real property sales to be in writing. Many others require certain financial instruments or transactions to be in writing. And so on.
So while a verbal agreement may raise questions of honour and sometimes equity ("equity" as in the body of law, not the moral concept), it can often be considered non-contractual.
About 11 years ago I did a short stint as a customer support bloke for a telco here in Australia. Recorded verbal contracts were the new fashion, and made life easier for switching phone companies. But every 'verbal' recording started with boilerplate stating that this was a recorded conversation, and constituted a contract. The content was specific points, like in a paper document. It was not a casual conversation. Things may have changed here in the meantime, but that's the way it was then.
I also think that a unilateral audio recording wouldn't stand in a lot of places, given that it's illegal in some places to record a private conversation without informing the other party.