19/03/2026
Lawyers often suggest that parties reduce their agreements into writing, as oral agreements present significant disadvantages compared to written agreements, some of which are outlined below.
1. Lack of evidence
Oral agreements can be difficult to prove due to the absence of documentation or any tangible record of terms agreed upon. In the event of a breach or dispute, it becomes difficult to establish the existence and precise terms formally agreed upon thereby hindering the pursuit of an appropriate legal remedy.
2. Absence of legal/ expert opinion
Oral agreements are usually concluded without seeking legal advise or the opinion of an expert which often results in omitting essential terms or failure to comply with applicable legal requirements. In contrast, when parties decide to have a written agreement they usually seek services of a legal practitioner to draft the agreement or review it ensuring that the agreement is legally sound, comprehensive and protects the interests of all parties.
3. Susceptible to misunderstandings
The absence of written terms significantly increases the likelihood of misunderstandings between the parties, as the agreement is dependent on individual recollection, which may be affected by memory lapses or misinterpretation. In contrast, a written agreement provides a definitive and accessible record of the terms, enabling the parties to refer to the document in the event of a dispute, thereby promoting certainty and reducing the risk of conflicting interpretations.
4. Lack of formalities
Oral agreements lack the requisite formalities that ordinarily signify a serious intention to be legally bound. In contrast, written agreements are executed with formal elements such as signatures, dates, and, where applicable, attestation by witnesses. These formalities serve as evidence of the parties’ intention to create legal relations and enhance the enforceability of the agreement.
