• mikeyBoy14@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    As a counterpoint, it would be quite unfair for the law to allow people to breach their agreements purely based on the medium used to enter into an otherwise valid contract.

    E.g., what if the non-breaching person had invested considerable time or money complying with their end of the bargain in reliance on the promise? What if, as I understand the case was here, the parties completed multiple agreements over text and came to rely on that medium as the convention?

    In any event, the analysis leaves a lot of room for a judge to consider the factual background and reach a fair outcome.

    • guyman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can breach any ‘agreement’ that doesn’t have your notorized signature on it. Telling someone you’re going to do something is not a legally binding agreement.

      • mikeyBoy14@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Mate, in basically all common law jurisdictions an agreement can be a legally binding contract regardless of its form. While there are some narrow exceptions (largely dealing with specific instruments or real property), by and large that rule holds. Even an oral contract is legally enforceable.