The classic difficulty of an oral agreement is that a party to the agreement tries to abandon the agreement reached and denies that such an interview took place. At least where I live, oral promises are part of the contract (unless the contract specifically says that things are only valid if they are written). If your employer deliberately ignores its promises, your relationship is probably depreciated enough that you should go (or be fired), as “applicable” is a relative term, but keeping protocols will at least ensure that it is not accidentally forgotten. And the protocols allow both parties to be less clear/more detailed than the contract itself, while communicating to the general scope of your agreements. An offer is a promise made by one party to another, which promises to enter into a contract on defined terms. It must be specific, complete and accepted. Acceptance of the offer must be clear to allow a contract to be concluded (i.e. there are no other negotiations). Written contracts may consist of a standard agreement or a letter of confirmation of the agreement.
Rule 2: It is never wise to enter into an agreement that is questionable, especially with weak parties. Your hypothesis is largely the right one. Oral agreements can be legally binding [I AM NOT A LAWYER, BUT I DO WATCH JUDGE JUDY OCCASIONALLY]. But such agreements are very, very difficult to prove [from their own experience] and therefore to apply them. I did not even bother to raise with Peres and his team the legal questions of whether the secret and oral promises are binding and enforceable. Instead, I focused on practical issues such as how Israel was able to confirm whether The Palestinian representatives in Oslo were empowered to make these important oral promises and what Israel would do if they refused these assurances after the signing of the DOP. In an internal consultation with Peres` team, I asked: “If it was acceptable for you that part of the agreement – the most important part – was agreed only orally, why would you want a written agreement with the PLO? Either you wrote it all down, or you did everything orally. In summary, the laws of Denern, Peter and Murphy`s Laws are the same: it is customary for buyers and sellers to turn several rounds of counter-offers before reaching a contract acceptable to both parties. It can take days. One way to shorten the process is to negotiate verbally.
In my view, this is perhaps the most difficult mission a negotiator has ever been placed on. The resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was in itself the most difficult challenge in international negotiations. The definition of a deficient draft agreement to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been exponentially more difficult: a “fix” on the power of two. For example, in 1994, at the signing ceremony of the Gaza-Jericho agreement in Cairo, I surprised PLO President Jasser Arafat, who claimed to sign the cards of the agreement (which is an integral part of the agreement) but did not really sign them.