A verbal agreement can be legally binding in California, but its enforceability depends on the circumstances and type of contract. Courts may recognize implied or oral contracts, but proving their existence requires evidence like workplace policies, employment history, or industry standards.
By Brad Nakase, Attorney
Email | Call (888) 600-8654
Have a quick question? I answered nearly 1500 FAQs.
In most cases, it is wise for two parties to sign an agreement, including an employer and an employee. A contract like this is easier to enforce than a situation where one side’s word is at odds with the other. Having said that, the idea that a contract must be “in writing” in order for a court to enforce it is false.
A written contract is required in some situations, but in most cases, an oral or implied contract can serve as the basis for a job and be legally binding when it comes to employment. Nakase Wade can help if you think your boss broke an implied or verbal agreement.
Similar to other forms of employment contracts, implied and oral contracts do not rely solely on written language and the parties’ signatures to be legally binding. Having said that, they do each exhibit certain distinguishing features:
It is possible for an implied contract to be partially written, but in most cases, the existence of a contract is determined by courts by analyzing a set of circumstances. Consequently, courts can legitimately find that a contract does exist as a matter of fact, even in the absence of a written contract or with only conduct and circumstances that may or may not suggest the existence of an enforceable agreement.
Both “implied-in-fact” and “implied-in-law” contracts exist in the legal system. The actions of the parties involved in a situation that gives rise to an implied-in-fact contract indicate that the parties intended for there to be an agreement with duties for each party. An implied-in-law contract, on the other hand, is one that the court finds to be binding despite the fact that neither party sought to create it. This type of contract is based on circumstance rather than the actions of the parties involved.
Verbal agreements between two or more parties are the foundation of an oral contract, which is typically not written down and is based on a verbal understanding. A shorter statute of limitations period applies to verbal or oral contracts than written ones, so employees should be aware of this. In California, for instance, a written contract has a four-year statute of limitations, but an oral contract has only two.
When a worker insists on employment terms that go beyond the typical at-will scenario, it is sometimes necessary to prove that implied and oral contracts were in place. If there is no written, verbal, or implied agreement between an employer and employee defining the duration of employment or the conditions for termination, the employee is considered to be employed at will under California Labor Code 2922.
By establishing the existence of an implied or oral employment contract, you may be able to sue your employer for wrongful termination if they fire you despite this contract. You have the burden of proof in establishing that your employer’s actions or inactions in the past gave rise to an implied agreement not to fire you without reasonable cause. Proof of an implied contract can be based on the following factors:
Remember that your employer can still fire you “with good cause,” like failing to perform or breaking company policy, even if you had an implied contract. It is important to seek legal counsel before accepting this defense at face value because the concept of “good cause” is subjective and could conceal illegal activity.
Evidence of an oral contract is distinct from that of an implied one, which depends on the specifics of the case at hand. This is because it is very unusual to find concrete proof of the existence of an oral contract. Instead, what matters most to courts is whether one of the parties to the verbal agreement actually did something relying on the purported terms of the agreement, like starting and finishing the service or work depending on a promise of payment.
The extent to which you can sue for wrongful termination damages is contingent on whether or not your employer has violated an implied contract. Damages of this kind might include:
Understanding implicit and verbal agreements can be challenging for those without legal training. Having the ability to identify when one exists, on the other hand, could be of major importance in establishing whether or not a termination of employment was legal.
Have a quick question? We answered nearly 2000 FAQs.
See all blogs: Business | Corporate | Employment Law
Most recent blogs:
Contact our attorney.