Hacker News Reader

Comment by dannyw | Hacker News Reader

Verbal agreements are very much legally binding, especially if it is in writing (e.g. over email).

Not a lawyer, but I thought that one element of a binding contract (at least in the common law Anglosphere) is that the parties must intend to create a legally binding relationship - i.e. if two friends agree to each do a favour for each other, and one of them reneges on their promise, the courts won't hold that it's a contract because in general if you ask a friend to do a favour for you, it's not understood to be a formal legal relationship.

I wonder how that applies to embargoes that don't come with formal NDAs or whatever.

I worked for lawyers that did a lot of contract law. It can vary from state to state (in the U.S.) but the state I worked in a verbal agreement -- not even written down -- is legally binding. Proving a non-written agreement can be hard in court but that is a different issue.

Not disagreeing - I didn't say a verbal agreement isn't binding.

What I'm saying is that a verbal agreement is binding if there's an intention to create binding relations, and not binding if there is not that intention.

There is a relationship formed though, 'we will provide you this information early on the condition that you release not before a date and time we specify.' They both get something valuable from each other, the outlet access to write a better article and to publish sooner when it will get more traffic and the company gets their earning in front of more people.

Did you seriously write this?

This doesn't contribute to conversation at all and seems to be implying something that's incorrect. Verbal agreement (e.g. even telling someone out loud "I agree to do this for you for $10") is a form of legal contract. Enforceability/provability is a different story but legally that's a contract.

> seems to be implying something that's incorrect

I think they were referring to the contradiction of "verbal agreement... especially if it's in writing." But yeah, the snarky comment does not help anybody with anything.

An agreement in writing is usually a verbal agreement, so it's not even wrong. Perhaps someone meant to contrast an oral agreement with a written one.

> An agreement in writing is usually a verbal agreement

A verbal agreement inherently means there's no written agreement. Also, oral = verbal.

That's incorrect. Legally, verbal primarily means using words. The technical difference is whether an agreement is written or spoken/oral.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com