In the case of S.V. Narayanaswamy vs. Savithramma 2013R. F.A.No.1163 of 2002 v R.F.A.1164 of Karnataka High Court, the complainant successfully demonstrated the existence of an oral agreement. The applicant has lodged an appeal for the practical performance of the sales contract. The sales contract was oral. The complainant presented the cheques the respondent received for examination of the object. The respondent deliberately contacted the agreement. Even the witnesses interviewed knew that there was an agreement between the complainant and the respondent. After reviewing the applicant`s evidence, the Tribunal found that there was an oral agreement between the two parties. The cheques were proven to be proof that a considerable amount was paid. This clearly proves the oral agreement.
On the other hand, oral agreements are words, gestures, symbols by which one party transmits a promise or a series of promises to another, which becomes a valid oral agreement if accepted by the other party. They may be expressive or implicit. Valid oral agreements are legally applicable in court. It is not, however, of great probative value, because the agreement is obtained by the buer and by second-hand knowledge. In the case of litigation or legal action, it is difficult for the court to determine the true nature of the facts and terms of the agreement without the bias being applied. Just like the aunt in our imaginary scenario, you`re probably better off documenting a written agreement. Something as simple as a promised note, detailing the nephew`s promise to repay his aunt, could have avoided any quarrel over their agreement. Finally, it is less difficult to ask family members for a written loan than to bring them to justice. An oral agreement is as valid as a written agreement. The legality of an oral agreement cannot be questioned if it falls within the indecency of the requirements of paragraph 10 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. To win the case, the aunt must prove with evidence that her nephew lent the money with the intention of repaying it, while the nephew must prove that he did not accept.