In a recent legal blog post Law Firm ALTERNA’s partner and attorney-at-law Siret Siilbek writes about the pros and cons of concluding contract for services orally.
The Law of Obligations Act does not establish a form requirement for the contract for services. This means that it can be concluded in which ever form, including orally. According to the law, the contract is considered to be concluded when the parties have reached an agreement in all of the fundamental terms of the agreement. The main fundamental term of the agreement is the object of the contract (i.e specific works that the parties have agreed on). This fundamental term has to be negotiated by the parties and the contract can not be considered concluded without this term.
When concluding an oral contract for services it might happen that the parties are unable to prove other terms of the contract such as remuneration, deadline of completing the work and quality of work. Siret explains that in this case it is possible to rely on the law.
This means that an oral contract for services is also a binding agreement between the parties. Even if the parties do not have a written agreement in case of a dispute, the situation might not be totally hopeless for both parties.
Read Siret’s explanations about the pros and cons of concluding a contract for services orally from Addenda’s home page: https://www.addenda.ee/vandeadvokaat-siret-siilbek-suulise-toolepingu-volu-ja-valu
Questions related to this post can be discussed with Siret by e-mail on email@example.com or by calling +372 680 6850.
Law Firm ALTERNA