Editing Oral contract (section)

== Enforcement ==

Provided that an oral contract satisfies any requirements imposed by law, such a requirement that contracts for a specific type of transaction be in writing, it is legally enforceable.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McNeill |first1=W.S. |title=Agreements to Reduce to Writing Contracts within the Statute of Frauds |journal=Virginia Law Review |date=1928 |volume=15 |page=553}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fu |first1=Jacqueline |title=International Franchise Contracts in Taiwan |journal=International Journal of Franchising |date=2005 |volume=3 |page=6}}</ref>

For example, in 1984, [[Getty Oil]] was sold to [[Pennzoil]] in a handshake deal, a lay term for an oral contract, which was binding under New York law. [[Texaco]] later made a higher offer, and the company was sold to Texaco. Pennzoil filed a lawsuit alleging [[tortious interference]] with the oral contract and, after prevailing in court, was awarded $11.1 billion in damages, later reduced to $9.1 billion plus interest and penalties.<ref>[http://www.agsm.edu.au/bobm/teaching/MDM/pennzoil.pdf Pennzoil V Texaco]</ref>

In a United Kingdom case, ''RCS Contractors Ltd v. Conway'', the parties to an otherwise valid oral contract for construction services disagreed as to whether they had entered a single oral contract for work at three sites, or three separate contracts, one for each work site. Without a written agreement, the court had to examine other evidence to attempt to discern the intent of the parties, ultimately concluding that the parties were operating under a single contract.<ref>{{cite web |title=Oral construction contracts: RCS Contractors Ltd v. Conway, a costly affair indeed |url=https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a8a0e23f-42d4-42bb-a46e-8b1fe89274a3 |website=Lexology |publisher=Law Business Research |access-date=19 February 2021 |date=18 July 2017}}</ref>