This approach leaves open the possibility of making oral changes to the nomadic clause in very limited circumstances, but would require a clear explanation or clear conduct to demonstrate that the parties have terminated the NOM clause and that they have the desire to waive it. However, such an argument would inevitably face a bitter struggle, given the views expressed by the majority of the Tribunal. « Before a court explicitly imposes an oral contract, the evidence must be sufficiently conclusive, clear and binding to leave no reasonable doubt as to its terms and nature. » In this article, Himanshu Sharma, NUJS` Diploma in Entrepreneurship Administration and Business Laws, Kolkat discusses the applicability of oral agreements under Indian law. In that decision, Lord Sumption confirmed that there was no public policy reason why the oral non-modification clauses should not be upheld by the courts and that they do not frustrate or violate a particular legal policy. He recalled that the statute often provides for the form of an agreement. For example, Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1989 stipulates that agreements relating to the sale of real estate must be signed in writing and by the parties. Therefore, there was no valid reason why the parties should not accept a similar request by mutual agreement; Creating their own private law. It`s the supremacy of the treaty. Lord Sumption justified this decision by the fact that no oral amendment clause provides legal certainty to commercial parties and avoids disputes over the validity of an amendment (and its specific conditions). They also provide a mechanism for organizations to monitor their own internal rules, which restrict the power to agree to changes. The Supreme Court repeated the same thing in Alka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi- Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO (s). 6197 OF 2000], with the Court of Justice holding that even a sales contract can be oral and that it can have the same binding value and enforceable force as a written agreement.

The agreement should correspond to the essential things listed in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 and therefore have the same strength of evidence as written evidence. On the other hand, oral agreements are words, gestures, symbols by which one party transmits a promise or a series of promises to another, which becomes a valid oral agreement if accepted by the other party. They may be expressive or implicit. Valid oral agreements are legally applicable in court. It is not, however, of great probative value, because the agreement is obtained by the buer and by second-hand knowledge. In the case of litigation or legal action, it is difficult for the court to determine the true nature of the facts and terms of the agreement without the bias being applied. By meeting these 4 necessary requirements, an agreement becomes a contract according to Section 10 of the Act. Therefore, it may be considered that an agreement, enhanced by the essential conditions presented in Section 10, considers the contract to be valid.

Section 2, letter e) of the act specifies that an agreement is defined as « any promise and series of promises that constitute a consideration for each other. » With respect to the validity of oral agreements in the handling of several cases, the courts recognized the acceptability of oral agreements as soon as it was established that they met the essential conditions set out in Section 10. As we see in the case of Alka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi – Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO (s).