Georgian law requires that certain contracts be enforceable in writing. This rule is called the “fraud law.” These agreements include land sales contracts, agreements that cannot be concluded within one year of manufacture, promises to pay off another`s debts, and promising to lend money. If you have an oral agreement and have not been submitted in writing, it is still applicable. An oral agreement is just as legally enforceable as a written agreement. However, they will have a hard time proving the terms of the agreement. So it`s a question of evidence. The Tribunal partially concluded that the substantive issue raised in the so-called agreement was irrelevant, since Georgian law requires that changes to the “statutory contract, which is prescribed in writing up to the Fraud Act,” also be made in writing and that the alleged agreement should be an oral amendment to such a contract. which is raised with respect to the so-called agreement, since such an agreement is inoperative. Thompson argues that the so-called oral agreement creates a genuine question of material fact both in terms of the enforceable force of the note and its defence of the Estoppel. Thompson asserts that the Tribunal erred because the alleged agreement was a termination and not an amendment and that, in this case, exceptions to the status of the fraud applied. We note that the court erred in concluding that the status of fraud and the need for unanimous action by the personal representatives of a succession undermine the importance of this objectivity in this dispute.
The court found that Blankenship`s promise to purchase automobile skeletons from Clifford was unenforceable in the face of Smith Svc. Oil Co. v. Parker, 250 Ga.App. 270, 549 S.E.2d 485 (2001). In this case, the parties to a real estate sale agreement agreed that they would “enter into a delivery contract in which [the buyer] would purchase gasoline for the [seller`s] station for ten years at a price of one cent per gallon above the seller`s cost.” (mentions in evidence). Id. We concluded that the parties had not accepted all the essential terms of the contract, as the quantity of gasoline to be delivered was yet to be decided.
Id. in 270-271 (1), 549 S.E.2d 485. In this regard, however, Clifford believes that the parties have accepted the essential terms of the oral agreement, which restrict the quantities that restrict Blankenship`s obligation to purchase automobile skeletons produced by Clifford`s case.