I studied contract law, it honestly was probably one of the MOST important class I ever took. Since every job, career, profession has to deal with contracts.
@@starkhalessi0000 Couple counterexamples. 1. Defining life to include non-human life, some things just exist, and cannot form contracts. 2. within human social life, contracts can't include coercion or use of force. So both war between nations and the pillaging or one-sided destruction of a victim by an aggressor is not a contract. Similarly, government by an oppressive dictator, like living under the rule of a violent bandit, lacks any form of basis in mutual agreement. Now, you might disagree with the axioms implicit in points 1 or 2, but then we're at an impasse, because the terms of our contractual agreement (and we haven't exchanged any physical consideration) in conversing must therefore be non-unique, in the sense that we both have a conflict of terms. This calls into question the very definition of what a contract *is*, whether one formed at all, and further whether and why a government should enforce them, or the specific ones in question. So I'd argue, no, not everything in life is a contract. and yes, I had nothing better to do.
@ well.. I shouldn’t have used all inclusive language. However, I meant consenting human life. But truth be told, someone will prove me wrong, in that they will state, their cat is currently in the process of making biscuits for them and knitting them a sweater.
Yeah but I think he means in terms of lawyers to lawyers more than anything, as they’re “more likely” to keep their word than betting someone to walk across the street etc
@@ẞæėį Not if it can be proven; if they try to change the contract when transferring from oral to written form, that is a form of fraud/theft (by deception), depending on the terms of the contract.
Always do verbal business in a public place, always record. Even in states without 2 party consent, the recordings are often still admissible in civil situations.
Almost exactly the same situation with a settlement for me. We agreed at mediation on an amount I'd accept to release them from liability without requiring them to admit anything. The draft contract comes over with a boilerplate NDA, my lawyer crossed it right out. We agreed to release them from liability, not to keep quiet. That's a substantially different offer, not just the same offer with details of definitions and execution.
@jmdenison Fortunately, it never had to go that far. Defendants accepted the terms we agreed on at mediation and all the judge had to do was get notice that we'd settled and dismiss the case
But if you don't have witnesses or something written down and one reneges on the deal, it becomes your word against theirs. Like the example he gave. If a person tells I'll pay you 10 dollars to walk the the of the street and no one is around to hear it or it's not written down, there's nothing to stop the person from running away and refusing to pay and you can't prove a thing.
From my understanding, spoken agreements are just as legally binding as written contracts The only problem is that if, in his example, if that dude on street refused to give you the 10 dollars and you sued him for it, you'd have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim and the dude could just say "Yeah, that never happened and they're making things up"
@@BradleySmith2024ITCLR is objective, not subjective. If a reasonable person believes the offer to be legitimate-and performance is a great indicia that’s the case-then it’s legitimate. ITCLR is a significantly more narrow exception than first year law students think it is.
Not absolutely no evidence. You can testify about it court, that's evidence. Having a written contract in addition to your testimony would be much stronger evidence.
Yes, as the joke goes, "Verbal agreements are not worth the paper they are written on". Unless you have a witness if you decided to go to court the judge would rule on the balance of probability - so how likely and reasonable does it sound that someone would make such an offer...
The best reason to get an agreement in writing is that people can misremember what was agreed to. If you have something in writing, even if it's just a few emails back and forth, that's something you can go back to when disputes arise.
Send it through text, email, record them saying it, memorialize all contracts. People with no contacts end up in litigation. The man saying we don't need contacts is the same person that gets hired. We do not live in a society that values a hand shake anymore.
A verbal contract is totally enforceable, if you can prove it. Trouble is that we as a society know better than to take anyone's word for anything. A man who will back out of promise will lie about making that promise.
@@LastRaven215 The man in this video is a lawyer. He wants us not to have a contract, so we can hire him or another lawyer. Verbal contracts are enforced but are harder to prove.
In Roman Law I learned that contracts are basically do something so they do something, do something so they give something, give something so they do something, give something so they give something
Yes, this is exactly why written contracts exist and are very important. If a contract is important to you, get it in writing and make sure it's signed by both parties. That way, it can be referenced in a court of law. But fundamentally, a contract doesn't have to be written down. It's just the most convenient way to make sure the other party can't lie about the terms on it. it's easier to defend.
in theory you can deny them too "but you agreed to take 1mil and keep this under wraps" "I agree to your settling offer of 1mil, staying silent was not part of the conversation"
I am no lawyer (and also not in the US), but I think an important caveat to this that may not be obvious, is that law can require certain contracts to be in writing for them to be valid. For example buying and selling property in my country has to be a written contract. So if someone says "I will sell you my house for x amount of money" and you agree that is not a valid contract.
With some exceptions, where you can't use a verbal contract. Still never rely or trust them, because unless there's a credible 3rd party witness it's incredibly difficult to prove.
@@Bandaid_Bus I tell everyone to get it in writing and then years later I'll see them and they will say you KNow how you advised to get in writing. and then boom they did and it all went south and they got paid because of the contract.
Don't forget consideration. The million dollars in this context is for his client's settlement. Promises to give money for nothing in return do not a contract make.
This would be true of a contract outside of the context of litigation. "Will your client take $1mil" carries the implication that the offering party receives legal settlement in return. "I give you $1million, and you stop suing me" That counts as a fair contract.
@@sanguine2552 . "Yeah kind of a big deal to leave it out. His example is bad." I think the example is deliberately bad. It wasn't an offer, and Mike knows it. It was negotiation.
Don’t think there’s a problem with consideration in the settlement agreement, but I’m pretty sure there might be a consideration problem with “walk down the street and I’ll give you $10”
@@kemperhiggins895nope this is a valid unilateral contract. The consideration is the $10 for the performance of walking across the street. Courts don’t care what the consideration is (for the most part). -Law student
in order for a contract to be valid, both sides need to give consideration. that essentially just means you must give something, or forebear from doing something (or promise to do either) i assume the $1 is this, as the law doesn’t care about the size of the consideration, it just needs to exist. consideration does not have to be money though, it can be nearly anything considered a detriment of any size.
First reply to you is likely correct, it fits my general understanding. I work in advocacy but not as a legal professional, and my boss has explained before that a contract where one side has to give or do something, but the other doesn't, is not a valid contract and a judge would not enforce its terms in a dispute. $1 in the pocket is likely most valuable as a symbolic acknowledgment that "I promise to do you this favor, and I am giving you the legal standing to hold me to it"
They all do. However, there is an exception known as the Statute of Frauds, which requires that some types of contracts must be in writing. These include contracts for the sale of real estate, the sale of goods worth $500 or more, and contracts that cannot be performed within one year, along with a few others. But otherwise, oral contracts definitely are legal and enforceable (if you can prove they exist and what the terms are).
Contracts should be legally recordable/photographed without consent, and it should be taught how contracts work and what they can and cannot do, and when it is recommended to not accept a contract due to extremly unfavorable terms.
I actually used the way contracts are formed and recording laws in my state alongside your videos to legally win a court case against my former roommates who did a bunch of trashy stuff to me. I don’t have to pay for their damages to the apartment
what about verbal contracts between employee and employer? for example the manager says if you quit your second job and come here full time you can have this position, when you agree and follow through with your end of the agreement, everything is good until you get hurt on the job and have to follow strict work restrictions which makes you unable to do the same tasks for 5 months until you heal.. 1 week into the injury you get stripped of you title.. and you get told that the title doesnt even exsist..even tho it was made very clear what that title is and the responsibilities are in that position... then once you get taken off work restrictions you tell the manager you are ready to assume your old role and original hours.. they again deny the position ever exsisted and further, never reinstate your original hours while the whole time being extreeeemely toxic to you.... 4 months later, you are cut to 20 hours a week and multiple team members are asked by the manager to assume the role that the manager denied ever exsisted...
Yeah, anything like that should definitely be in writing, for obvious reasons. But the video creator's point was simply that the law doesn't _require_ such contracts to be in writing. Doesn't mean it's not a smart idea.
True but haha to make it more clear and safe for everyone in this situation a follow-up with my verbal communication a good old John handcock is a very important part of this one lol 😂 and I look forward to it!
There is actually a cash/value limit to verbal agreements for my area. Last time I checked it was anything under 300 dollars you do not need a written agreement for.
Of course all that you say is accurate. You are smart, know the law and persuasive in explaining our legal system. It is tragic that the law is not the same as truth and fairness. That is why, in the end, the judge is forced to rule that the defendant is not “innocent” but “not guilty” under the law. In spite of his conscience. So sad that money, power, effective lawyers and a bunch of other stuff prevail.
Just being found not guilty doesn't mean you are actually innocent, it just meant there was not enough convincing evidence. A declaration of innocence is incredibly rare but does happen.
A unilateral contract! However in the UK, if you signed the subsequent contract it can still be binding as past consideration can still amount to present consideration providing there was no duress.
A contract law professor once told me that the contracts that last the longest are ones where both parties had to make a major concession to the other as opposed to contracts where both parties profited. He explained that both parties might feel that they could make a better deal for profit and break that type of contract, but neither would break a contract based on sacrifice because they don’t want to feel they gave something up for nothing.
"Will your client accept a million dollars?" sounds more like an inquiry, not an offer. I would compare that to Harvey v Facey [1893], though I wonder if US contract law follows a different rule when it comes to pre-contract negotiations.
@@chrisflorez3090 CoL is, 9 times out of 10, a CYA clause rather than anything substantive. There are minor differences on the fringes, and those minor differences *do* matter in some cases, but most do the time CoL/CoF/Arbitration provisions are about cost, convenience, and predictability than actual substance.
@@kpro8908 if the law is functionally the same, then predictability isn’t an issue that can be resolved by a choice of law clause. And if you live and are litigating in Ohio, is including a Delaware choice of law clause really helping with cost and convenience? Or do we prefer Delaware law because it’s one of a handful of states that consistently enforces contracts as they are written. The predictability *is* the substantive difference in the law.
@douxowner7337 Context is important. When I email regarding settlement negotiations with the other party's attorney, there is an assumption that they are offering what they propose, unless they specify otherwise.
"Will your client accept a million dollars" is literally asking whether an offer for a million dollars will be accepted in the future if the offer is provided. This seems fairly obvious to me. The word "will" establishes a hypothetical context. This is why contracts are important. They establish consensus on what the actual offer really is instead of just discussing potential options.
@@PCDelorian Hypothetical may not be the best word. Now, your example, literally interpreted, is a request for a yes/no answer on whether they are going to answer the door. In casual conversation, it is heavily implied to be a request to do so rather than just inquiring about whether they were already planning to or not. But that's the problem. Relying on personal expectations on what is IMIPLIED or not is totally inappropriate for a binding agreement about a million dollars. You have to be explicit. Is a professional lawyer really going to say, "yeah but I thought they meant this even though they didn't actually say it". Additionally, the example in the video shows precisely why. He thought something was implied, while the other lawyer did not. this proves that they shouldn't rely on assumed implications, but rather on explicit agreements.
@@Someone-c8f9l A contract is based on the reasonable interpretation of the words said, not a prescriptive meaning. Courts routinely interpret implied terms in contracts. Is a professional lawyer really going to say, "yeah but I thought they meant this even though they didn't actually say it" Yes all the time.
This is good to know. My entire neighborhood might sue our builders because they promised everybody moving in that they would be putting in a playground, and we have proof that they never intended to do that, but their sales tactics were to promise that to get people to buy a house in that neighborhood vs the other builders across the highway. So messed up, everybody is mad.
This is the crux of Terms & Conditions. It gets really fun when both you and *_your vendor_* have terms and conditions that both say that the other guys T&C's are void,
you dont even wanna know how much money people owe me. My ex owes me 80€, my best friend owes me 70€(but i will get it back), my old roomate who is a criminal ows me 40€, an old friend owes me 70€, my old supervisor ows me like 1000€, some guy i met ows me a new closet he broke mine... and so on. There are a bunch of people owing me money. :(
I would to ask, in the US, when would an offer be accepted. When the party has sent their acceptance, or when the other party has received that acceptance?
That issue is for a court to decide. What was the intent of the two parties? Was an offer made? Was that offer accepted? Was an oral contract formed as a result? Under the uniform commercial code (UCC), a contract for up to $500 does not have to be in writing. That's what courts are for.
In New York settlement contracts aren't valid unless signed by plaintiff. A lawyer at my firm had a frustrating case with dozen of emails from plaintiff's counsel agreeing to settle but we could not enforce the settlement.
Other people being around. Sometimes the fact that something is done. You don't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, just the preponderance of evidence. in the case of $10 to walk down the street, unless someone heard it, I don't know how you would prove it. Couldn't even prove that you walked down the street. But, there may be other circumstances where the fact that you have performed a task would indicate that you charged them money and maybe you always charge a certain amount. For example, technically when you go to a restaurant and order food and they bring it to you, you have entered into a verbal contract. The proof that the customer agreed to this contract would be the menu and the fact that there are witnesses that they ate food.
Have to be and should be are two different things, yes you can argue against someone else’s word solely based on the contents of your own claimed words but it’s much simpler to reference a dated and notarized piece of text that no one can poke holes through.
Oof, reminds me of every job where you have ONE responsibility that’s at a contracted price and you agree with it but then you get told you have to do something else as well
there's actually 3 types--written, oral and executory. executory is a contract in action it does not begin or may never begin until one party starts the work. An executory contract is an agreement between two parties that involves ongoing obligations to be fulfilled over time. The main difference between an executory contract and an executed contract is that an executed contract is usually fulfilled immediately, while an executory contract is fulfilled over a set period of time.
This is true as a general rule. But (as with pretty much everything in the law) there are exceptions where a written contract is required. And then, of course, there are exceptions to those exceptions, where a writing is not required even when a writing normally would have been required. What’s more important is what a contract says when it IS in writing. The smallest words can make the biggest difference
So a contract can be as simple as party A gives B to party C And there can be an agreement before the contract is even given that they will give B in Y amount or whatnot And both are still considered contracts? I mostly see a contract as party A gives B in X amount to party b under these conditions. Is that version just to simplify the process and make it easier to prove so its more reliably legally binding?
So, you interview for a job, they agree to hire you under these terms verbally, you accept, and then they bring you an employment contract that says something a bit different, would that be the same?
Suing someone over an implied contract now. We discussed duties, responsibilities, and an agreed upon cost for the commissioned work. In the email I say I agreed to the pay and was told to begin work. Then they said they won't follow through with the project because they don't like that I added them as an employer on LinkedIn which feels like they were looking for a reason to get rid of me. Problem is we agreed to a contract and I'm okay with not doing the project now but because they are the ones that backed out they are the ones that are on the hook for that cost.
I learned this in business law in high school the other thing that matters is believability of the contract like if someone offers you five dollars for a luxury car and you say yeah sure that’s not a solid verbal contract
Generally, under the UCC (common law jurisdictions) and the civil law on contracts (Quebec and Louisiana), both parties need to agree to the terms of the contract and any additional terms post-agreement are not binding. If you both signed the settlement agreement, it gets pretty hard to void the contract unless one party can prove fraud on the part of the other party; courts want cases to settle as a public policy, because it saves the court time and money. There are exceptions (for example, if a Quebec contract of adhesion [where one side drafts the contract and the other side has no negotiating power] is drafted in English, the other party has a right to a French translation of the contract; if both sides agree to sign the English version, that version is binding; likewise if the signatory opts to sign the French version, that language is binding and any discrepancy between the two languages is usually construed in favour of the customer).
Public confessions were a cornerstone stipulation MN they couldn't ask for more of a sweetheart deal Imo, considering their level of transgressions, so I'm not really interested in hearing, let alone entertaining anything less than what was drawn up... If in anything,such an actm should be considered as slapping away an olive branch extended in good faith... They might as well spit in the collective faces of planet earth and call us all their bitches, in fact because they are flat out showing that their remorse is insincere and still believe they are in control of all of us... Seriously they should be on their knees and kissing yall feet, figuratively speaking, because you guys are willing to actually entertain an ending that precludes jailtime/etc... Considering the shit they pulled recently and have already done over the last 100 years or so... Believe me when I say That I kno plenty ofcareer criminals who couldnlt even fathom being offered such a deal Just sayin'
Other lawyer guy Mike., we all trust your opinion. I’m a NASCAR fan and there a case where FRM & 23XI are suing NASCAR over “ sign this and you agree not to sue “. It’s over their Charter agreement kind of like franchises in other sports…. There also a 3rd team involved, SHR had an agreement to sale each team one of their Charter. Similar to a good faith agreement., with the case going on. What are your thoughts
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/tr.png)
I studied contract law, it honestly was probably one of the MOST important class I ever took. Since every job, career, profession has to deal with contracts.
Everything in life is a form of contract.
@@starkhalessi0000 And even broader everything is a human activity, if you keep generalizing something you don't gain understanding you erase it.
@@starkhalessi0000 Couple counterexamples.
1. Defining life to include non-human life, some things just exist, and cannot form contracts.
2. within human social life, contracts can't include coercion or use of force. So both war between nations and the pillaging or one-sided destruction of a victim by an aggressor is not a contract. Similarly, government by an oppressive dictator, like living under the rule of a violent bandit, lacks any form of basis in mutual agreement.
Now, you might disagree with the axioms implicit in points 1 or 2, but then we're at an impasse, because the terms of our contractual agreement (and we haven't exchanged any physical consideration) in conversing must therefore be non-unique, in the sense that we both have a conflict of terms. This calls into question the very definition of what a contract *is*, whether one formed at all, and further whether and why a government should enforce them, or the specific ones in question.
So I'd argue, no, not everything in life is a contract.
and yes, I had nothing better to do.
@ well.. I shouldn’t have used all inclusive language. However, I meant consenting human life. But truth be told, someone will prove me wrong, in that they will state, their cat is currently in the process of making biscuits for them and knitting them a sweater.
he is now the god of contracts 🐢
Yes but the biggest issue with a non written contract is the burden of proof
Email?
Yeah but I think he means in terms of lawyers to lawyers more than anything, as they’re “more likely” to keep their word than betting someone to walk across the street etc
@Eclipse-lw4vf It sounded like the concept of a contract and then added the lawyer part as a example.
I'll bet you that lawyers make it a habit to record phone calls
@Steamrick 100% they would have that habit in States that allow one party consent with recording.
This is why it’s always a good idea to get it in writing before agreeing to anything.
But the attorneys on both sides get to run up billable hours if someone thinks his example at the end was real 💀
@@ẞæėį Not if it can be proven; if they try to change the contract when transferring from oral to written form, that is a form of fraud/theft (by deception), depending on the terms of the contract.
Assumpsit.
Always do verbal business in a public place, always record. Even in states without 2 party consent, the recordings are often still admissible in civil situations.
@@derricktitley3784 At the very least, it is legal to record in public spaces where no privacy is expected.
Almost exactly the same situation with a settlement for me. We agreed at mediation on an amount I'd accept to release them from liability without requiring them to admit anything. The draft contract comes over with a boilerplate NDA, my lawyer crossed it right out. We agreed to release them from liability, not to keep quiet. That's a substantially different offer, not just the same offer with details of definitions and execution.
the judge may be able to enforce an oral settlement agreement esp. when it just involves payment and release.
@jmdenison Fortunately, it never had to go that far. Defendants accepted the terms we agreed on at mediation and all the judge had to do was get notice that we'd settled and dismiss the case
Silence is golden, and gold is expensive.
A gentleman's handshake is worth as much as any written contract you can make, and it's great the law agrees
Yes I agree
@@stephenj9470because the show is fake
But if you don't have witnesses or something written down and one reneges on the deal, it becomes your word against theirs. Like the example he gave. If a person tells I'll pay you 10 dollars to walk the the of the street and no one is around to hear it or it's not written down, there's nothing to stop the person from running away and refusing to pay and you can't prove a thing.
@@stephenj9470 How else would you prove it?
Oral contracts in my state essentially don't exist as far as the state is concerned.
From my understanding, spoken agreements are just as legally binding as written contracts
The only problem is that if, in his example, if that dude on street refused to give you the 10 dollars and you sued him for it, you'd have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim and the dude could just say "Yeah, that never happened and they're making things up"
Also no ITCLR which is why it wouldn't work
Sounds like a good reason for a lawyer to either ask for the contract in email, or record all interactions with other lawyers.
@@BradleySmith2024ITCLR is objective, not subjective. If a reasonable person believes the offer to be legitimate-and performance is a great indicia that’s the case-then it’s legitimate. ITCLR is a significantly more narrow exception than first year law students think it is.
Not absolutely no evidence. You can testify about it court, that's evidence. Having a written contract in addition to your testimony would be much stronger evidence.
Yes, as the joke goes, "Verbal agreements are not worth the paper they are written on".
Unless you have a witness if you decided to go to court the judge would rule on the balance of probability - so how likely and reasonable does it sound that someone would make such an offer...
The best reason to get an agreement in writing is that people can misremember what was agreed to. If you have something in writing, even if it's just a few emails back and forth, that's something you can go back to when disputes arise.
Offer, acceptance, and consideration are carved into my brain because of Contracts courses in law school
Boimmin carbolic smoke balls.
Consideration can be "good" or "valuable", did you forget that part?
Send it through text, email, record them saying it, memorialize all contracts. People with no contacts end up in litigation. The man saying we don't need contacts is the same person that gets hired. We do not live in a society that values a hand shake anymore.
A verbal contract is totally enforceable, if you can prove it. Trouble is that we as a society know better than to take anyone's word for anything. A man who will back out of promise will lie about making that promise.
You literally have no idea what he's saying.
@@LastRaven215 The man in this video is a lawyer. He wants us not to have a contract, so we can hire him or another lawyer. Verbal contracts are enforced but are harder to prove.
And check if your state has one-party laws for recording
@@alexjimenez8088 you still need a lawyer for written contract breach
In Roman Law I learned that contracts are basically do something so they do something, do something so they give something, give something so they do something, give something so they give something
So types of contracts:
Do Do
Do Give
Give Do
Give Give
I guess these are the situations where then one party tries to deny what(how) they said.
Yes, this is exactly why written contracts exist and are very important. If a contract is important to you, get it in writing and make sure it's signed by both parties. That way, it can be referenced in a court of law.
But fundamentally, a contract doesn't have to be written down. It's just the most convenient way to make sure the other party can't lie about the terms on it. it's easier to defend.
in theory you can deny them too
"but you agreed to take 1mil and keep this under wraps"
"I agree to your settling offer of 1mil, staying silent was not part of the conversation"
Just remember to make a record of that exchange. audio, image, just something.
It doesn't matter. "It wasn't an offer. It was the start of negotiations. We were trying to find out what he wanted out of this."
@@PvblivsAelivs He wanted the $10 you offered which is why he walked to the end of the street and back.
I am no lawyer (and also not in the US), but I think an important caveat to this that may not be obvious, is that law can require certain contracts to be in writing for them to be valid. For example buying and selling property in my country has to be a written contract. So if someone says "I will sell you my house for x amount of money" and you agree that is not a valid contract.
They’re called statutes of frauds, and I’m kinda shocked he didn’t mention this
With some exceptions, where you can't use a verbal contract.
Still never rely or trust them, because unless there's a credible 3rd party witness it's incredibly difficult to prove.
I agree to pay my health insurance premiums on time and in full, and apparently, united health agrees to deny my claims without cause 👍
Welcome to capitalism, American style. 😕
(And for at least the next four years, it's only going to get worse.)
Thanks for the information on contracts.
I have been in small claims courts where the First thing the Judge says is if you don't have a written contract I can't do anything for you.
That's just being lazy.
Also depends on the matter at hand. Some things require a written contract. This video is slightly misleading.
@@Bandaid_Bus I tell everyone to get it in writing and then years later I'll see them and they will say you KNow how you advised to get in writing. and then boom they did and it all went south and they got paid because of the contract.
@@Cheepchipsable Prove you had an agreement without it.
Don't forget consideration. The million dollars in this context is for his client's settlement. Promises to give money for nothing in return do not a contract make.
Yeah kind of a big deal to leave it out. His example is bad. You don’t just make a contract over nothing for a million. 😂😂
This would be true of a contract outside of the context of litigation. "Will your client take $1mil" carries the implication that the offering party receives legal settlement in return. "I give you $1million, and you stop suing me" That counts as a fair contract.
@@sanguine2552
.
"Yeah kind of a big deal to leave it out. His example is bad."
I think the example is deliberately bad. It wasn't an offer, and Mike knows it. It was negotiation.
Don’t think there’s a problem with consideration in the settlement agreement, but I’m pretty sure there might be a consideration problem with “walk down the street and I’ll give you $10”
@@kemperhiggins895nope this is a valid unilateral contract. The consideration is the $10 for the performance of walking across the street. Courts don’t care what the consideration is (for the most part). -Law student
I love the 80s lawyer theme with the bongos in the back, perfect
Mike just resolving his business conflicts through shorts
Can you please clarify the fact and/or fiction about if/when the offer and acceptance of even $1 helps or not?
in order for a contract to be valid, both sides need to give consideration. that essentially just means you must give something, or forebear from doing something (or promise to do either) i assume the $1 is this, as the law doesn’t care about the size of the consideration, it just needs to exist. consideration does not have to be money though, it can be nearly anything considered a detriment of any size.
First reply to you is likely correct, it fits my general understanding. I work in advocacy but not as a legal professional, and my boss has explained before that a contract where one side has to give or do something, but the other doesn't, is not a valid contract and a judge would not enforce its terms in a dispute.
$1 in the pocket is likely most valuable as a symbolic acknowledgment that "I promise to do you this favor, and I am giving you the legal standing to hold me to it"
$1 sounds like it might be too trival in some situations
Look up peppercorn contracts, but the gist is both parties have to give or do something, no matter how small, for a contract to be valid.
Thers no longer a gentleman's promise
If the gentlemen’s promise ever existed, we wouldn’t have needed so many laws about agreements over the last 3000 years.
With todays tech, all my calls as a lawyer would be recorded!!!
Great illustration!
I walked to the end of the street. Where is my $10?
Bilateral and unilateral contracts! I just learned about this in my first contracts class in law school!
Proving in court that verbal contracts ever happened must be fun
Remember this in my business ethics class. Basically your contract 101.
I enjoyed this chapter in law class
100% smoothness 😂
If your state accepts verbal contacts, not all do..
They all do. However, there is an exception known as the Statute of Frauds, which requires that some types of contracts must be in writing. These include contracts for the sale of real estate, the sale of goods worth $500 or more, and contracts that cannot be performed within one year, along with a few others. But otherwise, oral contracts definitely are legal and enforceable (if you can prove they exist and what the terms are).
A contract is not a writing. It is an agreement. There are no states that don't "accept verbal contracts"
You’re a pretty fantastic attorney
You still should have a witness to enforce the contract though, and you should have the agreement recorded
35 seconds ago is delicious
Always like to be early to your insightful videos, Mike!
Contracts should be legally recordable/photographed without consent, and it should be taught how contracts work and what they can and cannot do, and when it is recommended to not accept a contract due to extremly unfavorable terms.
I actually used the way contracts are formed and recording laws in my state alongside your videos to legally win a court case against my former roommates who did a bunch of trashy stuff to me. I don’t have to pay for their damages to the apartment
what about verbal contracts between employee and employer? for example the manager says if you quit your second job and come here full time you can have this position, when you agree and follow through with your end of the agreement, everything is good until you get hurt on the job and have to follow strict work restrictions which makes you unable to do the same tasks for 5 months until you heal.. 1 week into the injury you get stripped of you title.. and you get told that the title doesnt even exsist..even tho it was made very clear what that title is and the responsibilities are in that position... then once you get taken off work restrictions you tell the manager you are ready to assume your old role and original hours.. they again deny the position ever exsisted and further, never reinstate your original hours while the whole time being extreeeemely toxic to you.... 4 months later, you are cut to 20 hours a week and multiple team members are asked by the manager to assume the role that the manager denied ever exsisted...
Yeah, anything like that should definitely be in writing, for obvious reasons. But the video creator's point was simply that the law doesn't _require_ such contracts to be in writing. Doesn't mean it's not a smart idea.
True but haha to make it more clear and safe for everyone in this situation a follow-up with my verbal communication a good old John handcock is a very important part of this one lol 😂 and I look forward to it!
Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Competence
There is actually a cash/value limit to verbal agreements for my area. Last time I checked it was anything under 300 dollars you do not need a written agreement for.
Of course all that you say is accurate. You are smart, know the law and persuasive in explaining our legal system. It is tragic that the law is not the same as truth and fairness. That is why, in the end, the judge is forced to rule that the defendant is not “innocent” but “not guilty” under the law. In spite of his conscience. So sad that money, power, effective lawyers and a bunch of other stuff prevail.
Just being found not guilty doesn't mean you are actually innocent, it just meant there was not enough convincing evidence.
A declaration of innocence is incredibly rare but does happen.
This is why recording audio and having the recording as proof is important
900 likes in 11 minutes? Put the fries in the bag law boy
If it’s not in writing it’s not real that’s what my attorney always said. We didn’t sign anything so I didn’t pay him.
A unilateral contract! However in the UK, if you signed the subsequent contract it can still be binding as past consideration can still amount to present consideration providing there was no duress.
A contract law professor once told me that the contracts that last the longest are ones where both parties had to make a major concession to the other as opposed to contracts where both parties profited. He explained that both parties might feel that they could make a better deal for profit and break that type of contract, but neither would break a contract based on sacrifice because they don’t want to feel they gave something up for nothing.
This is why one needs an attorney
Totally nailed Tom Morello
Hey Mike, but are all oral contracts enforceable? I love your detailed explanation of the Statute of Frauds.
True, with the caveat that contracts above a certain dollar limit are not legally enforceable unless they are in writing
"Will your client accept a million dollars?" sounds more like an inquiry, not an offer. I would compare that to Harvey v Facey [1893], though I wonder if US contract law follows a different rule when it comes to pre-contract negotiations.
There is no “US” contract law outside of maybe contracts with the federal government - each state has its own contract law.
@@chrisflorez3090U.S. contract law is basically homogenous, thanks to the Restatements and UCC.
@@kpro8908 riiiiiiiiiight. That explains why contracts don’t bother to include choice of law provisions. Makes sense.
@@chrisflorez3090 CoL is, 9 times out of 10, a CYA clause rather than anything substantive. There are minor differences on the fringes, and those minor differences *do* matter in some cases, but most do the time CoL/CoF/Arbitration provisions are about cost, convenience, and predictability than actual substance.
@@kpro8908 if the law is functionally the same, then predictability isn’t an issue that can be resolved by a choice of law clause. And if you live and are litigating in Ohio, is including a Delaware choice of law clause really helping with cost and convenience?
Or do we prefer Delaware law because it’s one of a handful of states that consistently enforces contracts as they are written. The predictability *is* the substantive difference in the law.
You just explained my 20k tuition in less than a minute 😂
this man just gave synopsis of modes of acceptance in first year contracts class in law school
Yup
How can asking a question on whether the other side accept an offer for a certain amount or not be the same as saying we offer a certain amount?
Would you consider accepting would be asking a question. We are offering would be an offer.
@katymvt Exactly. He asked a question. No offer was given.
@douxowner7337 Context is important. When I email regarding settlement negotiations with the other party's attorney, there is an assumption that they are offering what they propose, unless they specify otherwise.
"Will your client accept a million dollars" is literally asking whether an offer for a million dollars will be accepted in the future if the offer is provided. This seems fairly obvious to me. The word "will" establishes a hypothetical context. This is why contracts are important. They establish consensus on what the actual offer really is instead of just discussing potential options.
When someone says "will you go answer the door?" Do you think that's a hypothetical or a request?
@@PCDelorian Hypothetical may not be the best word. Now, your example, literally interpreted, is a request for a yes/no answer on whether they are going to answer the door. In casual conversation, it is heavily implied to be a request to do so rather than just inquiring about whether they were already planning to or not. But that's the problem. Relying on personal expectations on what is IMIPLIED or not is totally inappropriate for a binding agreement about a million dollars. You have to be explicit. Is a professional lawyer really going to say, "yeah but I thought they meant this even though they didn't actually say it".
Additionally, the example in the video shows precisely why. He thought something was implied, while the other lawyer did not. this proves that they shouldn't rely on assumed implications, but rather on explicit agreements.
@@Someone-c8f9l A contract is based on the reasonable interpretation of the words said, not a prescriptive meaning. Courts routinely interpret implied terms in contracts.
Is a professional lawyer really going to say, "yeah but I thought they meant this even though they didn't actually say it" Yes all the time.
yeah I agree this is a bad example. Especially because there is custom to not have an agreed contract until it is written for settlement agreements.
One thing i've learned about law is its basically a game of gaslighting each other to see who would fold first.
This is good to know. My entire neighborhood might sue our builders because they promised everybody moving in that they would be putting in a playground, and we have proof that they never intended to do that, but their sales tactics were to promise that to get people to buy a house in that neighborhood vs the other builders across the highway.
So messed up, everybody is mad.
Happy holidays, Mike
This is the crux of Terms & Conditions. It gets really fun when both you and *_your vendor_* have terms and conditions that both say that the other guys T&C's are void,
That should apply to family & criminal court issues as well
There's a third type of contract.
_that_ contract
you dont even wanna know how much money people owe me. My ex owes me 80€, my best friend owes me 70€(but i will get it back), my old roomate who is a criminal ows me 40€, an old friend owes me 70€, my old supervisor ows me like 1000€, some guy i met ows me a new closet he broke mine... and so on. There are a bunch of people owing me money. :(
I would to ask, in the US, when would an offer be accepted. When the party has sent their acceptance, or when the other party has received that acceptance?
Mike, How about contracts of adhesion, especially with unconscionable requirements?
""I am altering the deal, prey that I do not alter it any further."
The thing is verbal contracts are upheld everywhere. There are places that demand writing
Why don't employers have to obey the contract?
He was just asking you a question in that instance, not making a formal offer.
That issue is for a court to decide. What was the intent of the two parties? Was an offer made? Was that offer accepted? Was an oral contract formed as a result? Under the uniform commercial code (UCC), a contract for up to $500 does not have to be in writing.
That's what courts are for.
In New York settlement contracts aren't valid unless signed by plaintiff. A lawyer at my firm had a frustrating case with dozen of emails from plaintiff's counsel agreeing to settle but we could not enforce the settlement.
How do you prove verbal contracts?
Other people being around. Sometimes the fact that something is done. You don't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, just the preponderance of evidence. in the case of $10 to walk down the street, unless someone heard it, I don't know how you would prove it. Couldn't even prove that you walked down the street. But, there may be other circumstances where the fact that you have performed a task would indicate that you charged them money and maybe you always charge a certain amount.
For example, technically when you go to a restaurant and order food and they bring it to you, you have entered into a verbal contract. The proof that the customer agreed to this contract would be the menu and the fact that there are witnesses that they ate food.
Everybody and his brother has a phone in their pocket these days. Turn your oral contract into a written one by sending a text and getting a reply.
"Would you accept $x ?" Doesn't feel like an offer, it's more of a question.
What gets even more wild is when video contracts don't count in the eyes of a judge
Have to be and should be are two different things, yes you can argue against someone else’s word solely based on the contents of your own claimed words but it’s much simpler to reference a dated and notarized piece of text that no one can poke holes through.
Dammit Mike. My business law final is Thursday. I was watching RUclips to get AWAY from studying contracts
Oof, reminds me of every job where you have ONE responsibility that’s at a contracted price and you agree with it but then you get told you have to do something else as well
interesting, i was under the impression verbal contracts were only binding in florida and a couple other states
Mike Rafi said hes gonna give me a bajillion dollars on 2090. Spoken contract baby!!!
there's actually 3 types--written, oral and executory. executory is a contract in action it does not begin or may never begin until one party starts the work.
An executory contract is an agreement between two parties that involves ongoing obligations to be fulfilled over time. The main difference between an executory contract and an executed contract is that an executed contract is usually fulfilled immediately, while an executory contract is fulfilled over a set period of time.
He's talking about unilateral vs bilateral contracts.....
@@kookoo275 oral v. written
This is true as a general rule. But (as with pretty much everything in the law) there are exceptions where a written contract is required. And then, of course, there are exceptions to those exceptions, where a writing is not required even when a writing normally would have been required. What’s more important is what a contract says when it IS in writing. The smallest words can make the biggest difference
Thats why if your offer is accepted you don't say "great we have a deal". You just say "okay I'll have the contract ready for you on..."
"By walking to the end of the street, you agree to give me $10." Forgetting something, aren't we...
So a contract can be as simple as party A gives B to party C
And there can be an agreement before the contract is even given that they will give B in Y amount or whatnot
And both are still considered contracts?
I mostly see a contract as party A gives B in X amount to party b under these conditions. Is that version just to simplify the process and make it easier to prove so its more reliably legally binding?
There are SOME instances where a written contract is required, mostly cases involving land.
If you come meet me in person and say beetlejuice shake my hand we have a deal! lol 😂
So, you interview for a job, they agree to hire you under these terms verbally, you accept, and then they bring you an employment contract that says something a bit different, would that be the same?
Suing someone over an implied contract now. We discussed duties, responsibilities, and an agreed upon cost for the commissioned work. In the email I say I agreed to the pay and was told to begin work. Then they said they won't follow through with the project because they don't like that I added them as an employer on LinkedIn which feels like they were looking for a reason to get rid of me. Problem is we agreed to a contract and I'm okay with not doing the project now but because they are the ones that backed out they are the ones that are on the hook for that cost.
What happens when they break the silence? On either side?
thanks, Mike Ross
I learned this in business law in high school the other thing that matters is believability of the contract like if someone offers you five dollars for a luxury car and you say yeah sure that’s not a solid verbal contract
Generally, under the UCC (common law jurisdictions) and the civil law on contracts (Quebec and Louisiana), both parties need to agree to the terms of the contract and any additional terms post-agreement are not binding. If you both signed the settlement agreement, it gets pretty hard to void the contract unless one party can prove fraud on the part of the other party; courts want cases to settle as a public policy, because it saves the court time and money. There are exceptions (for example, if a Quebec contract of adhesion [where one side drafts the contract and the other side has no negotiating power] is drafted in English, the other party has a right to a French translation of the contract; if both sides agree to sign the English version, that version is binding; likewise if the signatory opts to sign the French version, that language is binding and any discrepancy between the two languages is usually construed in favour of the customer).
Public confessions were a cornerstone stipulation MN they couldn't ask for more of a sweetheart deal Imo, considering their level of transgressions, so I'm not really interested in hearing, let alone entertaining anything less than what was drawn up... If in anything,such an actm should be considered as slapping away an olive branch extended in good faith... They might as well spit in the collective faces of planet earth and call us all their bitches, in fact because they are flat out showing that their remorse is insincere and still believe they are in control of all of us... Seriously they should be on their knees and kissing yall feet, figuratively speaking, because you guys are willing to actually entertain an ending that precludes jailtime/etc... Considering the shit they pulled recently and have already done over the last 100 years or so... Believe me when I say That I kno plenty ofcareer criminals who couldnlt even fathom being offered such a deal Just sayin'
Serious question, what do you do when you get injured and someone is at fault, but they have no money?
What about swarm cards do all of them in the swarm get upgraded or just the singular unit
I want this guy to be my lawyer
Yeah, big warehouse store made a requirement to sign a nondisclosure after an accident
Consideration and intention too
Lucifer: “Contracts are my specialty. I’m somewhat of a contractor myself.” 😈😂🤣
#thedevilisinthedetails
He's forgetting - a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Ah, the Brooklyn bridge problem
Other lawyer guy Mike., we all trust your opinion. I’m a NASCAR fan and there a case where FRM & 23XI are suing NASCAR over “ sign this and you agree not to sue “. It’s over their Charter agreement kind of like franchises in other sports…. There also a 3rd team involved, SHR had an agreement to sale each team one of their Charter. Similar to a good faith agreement., with the case going on. What are your thoughts
Just make it simple, have your lawyer draft the contract and have the counter signature obtained. Keep things tight and simple.