This was done by Delhi High Court, in the case of Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Alag AIR 1991 Delhi 315, the court having decided that even an oral agreement can be a valid and enforceable contract. Therefore, it is not strictly necessary, in the strict sense, for a contract to be entered into in writing, unless the parties themselves are considering reducing the terms of the contract. In the case of Y V Narasimha Sarma vs. Soorampalli Appalaraju Civil (A.P) Court Appeal No. 887 of 1982 decided that it is not necessary for a contract to be written only, an oral contract is also valid. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Ownership Act, the oral purchase of a contract is true and valid. It was the plaintiff who filed the case to prove that the verbal agreement was true. He must provide real proof of his assertion.
It is true that the written contract has some validity, but if there is an oral purchase agreement, it must be proven with sufficient evidence. The court must also consider the matter very carefully in order to reach a conclusion. The Indian Contract Act 1872, Section 2(e), defines an agreement as “any promise and set of promises that are the counterpart to each other is an agreement.” The differing conclusions of the three jurisdictions in this proceeding highlight the difficulties associated with assessing the formation of the contract and the unspoken conditions, particularly where there is no written agreement. The parties should ensure that all essential conditions are expressly agreed in a legally binding contract. However, if certain essential conditions are lacking, but the parties clearly intend to be bound by their agreement and to act, that decision will provide some assurance that the courts will have an interest in finding an enforceable agreement. If one person accepts an offer to another person and that offer is accepted by the other person, that offer becomes a promise, and we have already discussed the definition of an agreement above. The status of a company operating under the conditions of a market economy operates service offices in London. With the status of a company operating under the conditions of a market economy, Rock entered into a licensing agreement for the occupancy of offices for one year in one of the buildings of company status operating under the conditions of a market economy near Marble Arch. This agreement included a “no oral amendment” (“NOM”) clause.
During this period, Rock`s rents were defaulted and the exclusive director negotiated a verbal agreement with a company status controller operating under the terms of a market economy to predict rents. When Rock began to pay at the revised rates, the status of a company operating under the conditions of a market economy required the full amount. When it did not come, the status of company operating under the conditions of a market economy blocked the rock company from the precinct, announced its license and filed a complaint about rent arrears in accordance with the initial conditions of the license. Rock responded and sought damages for illegally excluding offices. The applications of both parties related to the effectiveness of their oral agreement in amending the licensing agreement. In conclusion, oral agreements are legally applicable in court or in litigation. However, it is strongly recommended that agreements or contracts be reduced to a text composition.
Posted in: UncategorizedLeave a Comment (0) ↓