While you can work out an agreement yourself, it`s best for you to consult a professional experienced in developing similar agreements and give you an overview of what you need to pay attention to and what you need to avoid. There are several factors that we often forget when developing an agreement and it is important that all relevant details are taken into account so that there is little or no ambiguity in the agreement, especially in the event of a dispute. Oral agreements are as legally enforceable as written agreements. However, you may have problems if you have to prove that the agreement has been reached. If two or more parties reach an agreement without written documents, they will enter into an oral agreement (formally known as an oral contract). However, the authority of these oral agreements can be a bit of a grey area for those who do not know the law of contracts. Unlike written contracts, oral agreements are much more complex to prove them, so it is a good idea to seek advice. Since this case would be tried in a civil court (not a correctional tribunal), the burden of proof rests on a balance of probabilities rather than a reasonable doubt. International contracts are increasingly treated as bargains and exchanges, flexible in the face of economic and other factors. Article 8 of the ICSG appears to strike a balance between the reasons for the common law of security and predictability and the civil preference for determining the true subjective intent behind an agreement, by authorizing all relevant evidence.  The only problem with oral contracts is that their existence (and data) can be difficult to prove. If something is swivelling, the victim can still take the matter to court and sue the other party for breach of contract, but he must prove that the contract existed.
If there are no witnesses or documents that support the assertion, such contracts can be easily challenged. However, evidence of the surrounding circumstances is not admissible to contradict the language of the contract where it has a clear and clear meaning and, therefore, the subjective intentions of the parties are superseded by the treaty itself.  The rule is virtually unknown in civil law and it is questionable whether this principle should continue to function in light of its growing inability to reflect current international trade realities.