FTC's Proposed Ban on Non-competes Would Preempt Washington State Law
Savitt Bruce & Willey Ranked in 2023 "Best Law Firms"
Four SBW lawyers selected to 2023 Best Lawyers®
New Washington Statute Impacts Settlement Agreements in Employment Disputes and Limits Scope of Nondisclosure Agreements
SBW Welcomes Jacob P. Freeman
Blog Archives Select Month January 2023 November 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 August 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 March 2018 November 2017 September 2017 August 2017 June 2017 May 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 August 2014 July 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013
Agility arbitration Argument attorney-client privilege Best Law Firms Best Lawyers in America BTI Consulting CAFA Chambers Chris Hansen City of Seattle class-action CLE contracts COVID COVID-19 Deposition Employment Litigation ERISA estate force majeure gadgets indigence Initiative 91 King County landslide Legal History legal profession Litigation NBA news Ninth Circuit non-compete noncompete Oso Phantom Stock Rule 68 spoliation standing Supreme Court Testimony Washington Supreme Court WA Supreme Court Windsor Witness
When Are Oral Contracts Enforceable in Washington?
A handshake and a promise may be an amicable and honorable way to make an agreement, but is it legally binding?
In Washington, the answer is: sometimes. Whether an oral contract is enforceable in Washington depends upon the circumstances surrounding the terms of the agreement—most notably, whether the agreement falls under the provisions of the so-called "Statute of Frauds," requiring that certain types of contracts must always be in writing and signed by the parties to the agreement (or at least, in some circumstances, signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought).
Although there are some exceptions, the following kinds of agreements generally must be in writing to be enforceable under Washington law:
Sales of goods for which the purchase price is over $500 (with an exception for goods "specially manufactured" for the buyer that cannot be resold by the seller in the ordinary course of business);
Sales or purchases of real estate as well as real-estate brokers' commissions;
Contracts that, by their terms, cannot be performed within a year;
Promises made by an executor or administrator to cover damages from their own estate.
Provided it does not fall within one of the categories above, an oral contract is just as "enforceable" as a written contract—if you can prove its existence.
Whether the contract is written or oral, the party asserting a breach must prove the subject matter of the contract, the parties, the promise, the terms and conditions, and (in some circumstances and in some jurisdictions) the price or consideration. Proving these things may be harder without anything in writing, but it is not impossible. And to the extent there are writings pertaining to terms of the contract, they are evidence (and perhaps good evidence) of what the parties agreed even if they do not amount to a contract in themselves.
There is another important, practical difference regarding the enforcement of oral and written contracts in Washington. The statute of limitations requires a plaintiff to bring a cause of action for breach of an oral contract within three years of the date of the alleged breach. For written contracts, the time limit is generally six years.[ii]
Because proving the existence of an oral agreement can be time-consuming and costly, and involves additional layers of uncertainty, it is generally advisable to put the terms of agreements in writing. But there is nothing about an oral contract that makes it unenforceable per se, provided it is not a contract required by statute to be in writing.
–Miles A. Yanick
[i] RCW 19.36.010.
[ii] RCW 4.16.080.
Miles Yanick
myanick@sbwllp.com