Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I@seaver, "verbal" contracts are very much contracts. look it up.
I also have no idea why people are thinking that *oral* contracts are not viable contracts, or that they are superceded by written ones...other than the obvious flaw that it's difficult to prove the terms of an oral contract in a courtroom. but that doesn't mean they are less "legal" than a written contract.
|
smooth, I never said that verbal contracts aren't binding or not viable. They certainly are. However, a written contract replaces a verbal contract in almost every single instance - and the enlistment contract is NOT an exception.
In other words, a verbal contract standing alone is potentially completely viable (depending on the agreement and terms themselves), but the moment that a written document is signed, it replaces the verbal contract. A judge is always going to be directed by what the terms of that contract unless it's illegal for some reason. Enlistment contracts aren't going to be found illegal very often, although I suppose it's possible.
Ok, now I have to use my scarey mod voice: there's been some personal sniping in this thread between several people. Since it's more than just a couple, I'm issuing a blanket warning rather than PM the offenders.
Start chosing your words carefully or I will shut this thread down. This is the only warning you're going to get, so if you want to continue this discussion, do it in a mature, respectful manner.