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. There are two main differences between an oral contract and a written contract. The first and most obvious is that an oral contract is an oral agreement. Second, oral contracts are pronounced, that is, there is no other evidence that they were created, with the exception of the parties or witnesses who heard them. In the case of S.V. Narayanaswamy vs.
Savithramma 2013R.F.A. No. 1163 of 2002 v R.F.A.No.1164 of Karnataka High Court, the complainant sought to prove the existence of an oral agreement on the sale of real estate, which was strongly alleged. With the complainant`s proof allowance, she did so by issuing cheques in several amounts for the entire estate consideration. In developing various pieces of evidence indicating the existence of a whole, the Tribunal confirmed the existence of the verbal agreement based on the examination of the evidence presented. Thus, oral chords, even if they may look like a swamp bag, can be proven in court by several clues. Even for many witnesses who prove an agreement, the court is often tasked with proving and identifying the terms of oral conventions. It is highly likely that the parties` personal bias and non-complete insanity would undermine validity and call into question the existence of a valid oral agreement. For a contract to be binding, certain elements must be respected.
These are: an oral dispute over contract law is often based on the fact that one or both parties are clearly based on the agreement. Oral contracts are best as a simple agreement with easy-to-understand terms and evidence of the existence of the agreement.