verbal contracts

[paulus]

are verbal contracts binding if recorded during a telephone call

[treaclefight]

yep, verbal contracts are binding, the only problem with them is proving they exist. a phone call can be sufficient evidence, whether it is binding will also depend on other factors to do with the content, but a recorded phone call can be evidence of a contract :-)

[sft42]

Be very careful here as for recording of telephone conversations needs the consent of both parties involved (that's why you get the recorded message telling you this from some companies)....if this consent is given or is taken as being given by your continued conversation once a warning has been given then a taped conversation could be used as proof of a legally binding verbal contract.

[treaclefight]

good point sft, but i think even an illegaly taped conversation will be seen by the courts as good evidence (courts dont like making themselves look obstinate or stupid, if the evidence is there it will be acknowledged, especially as this is a civil infringement rather than a criminal one), the other party to the contract will have grounds to sue you (maybe) for illegally taping their conversation, but that is another action separate from the contract. the courts will favour upholding a contract wherever possible. :-)

[KARL]

The question is presumably posed to learn whether the recording can be used to establish the contract's terms before a court. My opinion is that sft42's caution is very well founded and that it could prove very difficult to win an action based solely on a recorded telephone conversation. The chances will very much depend on the court (laws vary within the UK) and judge concerned, the latter being quite unpredictable. If you are contemplating action then only do so if you cannot resolve matters otherwise and even then only after discussing it with a lawyer. Any court action will potentially be enormously expensive and while the outcome will by definition be "justice" it will not at all necessarily be fairness (the two are quite separate things).

[KARL]

Certainly, Einstein is correct: verbal contracts are binding. However, whether they are or not is only tested when one party does not observe it as the other party perceived it and a dispute arises. It is at this point that the question of proving the contract's existence arises (no contract, no obligation). Presumably paulus asked about telephone recording because of this possibility - otherwise he might not have had much reason to mention the recording at all. Perhaps paulus should come in here if he feels his question has not yet been fully answered.