Although oral contracts are reliable, some types of contracts are high risk and are vulnerable to fraud when they are concluded on oral terms. Written contracts are necessary in the following situations: contract formation is made when an offer and a reduction in the exchange of „counterparty“ (i.e. a little value) are made between the contracting parties. This offer and acceptance are sometimes referred to as „meeting spirits“ or „reciprocity of consent.“ If the parties have not reached a threshold of agreement under these standards, there will be no binding contract. This case shows that if a contract cannot be executed within one year of the contract`s execution date, the contract must be written to be enforceable. The courts will consider whether the intention and understanding of the parties was that the agreement should not be executed within one year of the date of the agreement, in order to determine whether or not an oral contract should be executed within the one-year statute of limitations. I agree with the majority`s conclusion that there is informed evidence in the minutes that the court supports the finding that there was no „meeting of minds that could lead to a binding contract of joint ventures or partnerships between the plaintiff and the defendant.“ However, this finding is not entirely desecrated for this remedy if, with the exception of its alleged Community action or its partnership action, the applicant has committed to violate the oral action. In that census, the complainant sought separate compensation for the work performed under six specific cable contracts as part of a verbal agreement with the appeal. It appears from the final judgment that the first instance simply did not rule on this case or that it did not sufficiently merge this separate count with the replacement action promised for violation of the joint venture or the partnership agreement. In both cases, I do not believe that the final judgment can be upheld in toto and that this case should be remanded in custody for a finding by the Tribunal concerning the applicant`s violation of the oral agreement, particularly if, as is the case here, some evidence of this allegation is available. However, the Tribunal must determine at trial whether this evidence is sufficient to support this assertion. The fundamental principle of reviewing the appeal is that the findings of a trial are considered correct and are not disturbed in the appeal process, unless those findings are completely unfounded by competent and substantial evidence. Marrone vs.
Miami Nat`l. Bank, 507 So.2d 652 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); Randy Int`l, Ltd. v. American Excess Corp., 501 So.2d 667 (Fla.3d DCA 1987). There is informed and substantial evidence here that the Tribunal supports the assertion that there was no form of opinion on the essential elements necessary for the formation of a contractual partnership. See Theocles v. Lytras, 518 So.2d 936 (Fla.3d DCA 1987). The recording clearly reflects that Kenneth did not fulfill his burden of proof of a binding contract. See Dade Metropolitan County v. The Hernandez Estate, 591 So.2d 1124 (Fla.3d DCA 1992); Theocles, 518 So.2d to 937. The Court of Appeal in Tydir stated that, for the Fraud Act to render an agreement unenforceable, it should be noted that the parties understood that the agreement should not be executed within one year of the contract.
The main factor to consider in determining whether an oral contract should be completed within the one-year statute statute is the intention of the parties.