+0
hi!

Could you please explain the difference between contract and agreement? Is there actually any difference between these two terms in American/British legal system? For example in the text below the terms are expressly distinguished.

«It was all handled according to numbers,» Virginia said. «General classifications. For instance, number one to a thousand was personal correspondence. Number one thousand to three thousand represented contracts. Three thousand to five thousand, probate. Five thousand to six thousand, wills. Six thousand to eight thousand, agreements. Eight thousand to ten thousand, real estate transactions.»
by Erle Stanley Gardner "The Case of the Horrified Heirs"

Thank you in advance
1 2 3 4 5 6
Comments  (Page 3) 
1) The entry above basically answers this question. An MOU is usually not binding. It states the understandings of the parties prior to entering into a contract. A contract is binding and can be enfrced before the courts.

2) Yes most definately

3) I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of contracts are entered into without an MOU. And, generally, there are no particular problems associated with entry itnto contract without an MOU.

Your welcome!
mere agreement is not a contract, as the former one is the essential elements of the second one, when agreement which are enforciable at law is present then there is possibility of contract. after agreement if any of the partner of partnership firm dies still the contract is binding on the remaing partners and they have to execute it. as death if not resulting in dissolution of firrm will not affect the agreement. ,m alu
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
contract means which is enforceable by law

agreement means act or state of work (it means understanding between two or more parties)

all contracts are agreements but all agreements are not contracts

The main difference between contracts and pacts is who ends up paying the price for the damages resulting from a broken agreement. When a formal contract is drawn up, it specifies responsibilities of all signatories. If any of the signatories do not fulfill their responsibilities, the contract is broken and whoever broke it can be sued for the damages resulting from non-performance. This (in theory) eliminates profitability of "backstabbing". Whereas, when you have a pact, anyone can withdraw from it without the other participants having any recourse for addressing their grievences other than not dealing with the party that withdrew. But if a situation arises where it is more profitable to backstab than it is to stay true to the pact, the benefit-maximizing course of action is to backstab... again because the other members can't recover their losses from the backstabber (other than not dealing with him anymore... but he expects as much, so that's part of the cost expected to pay while considering maximization of benefits). All of this results from the fact that contracts have a mechanism for legal enforcement. Whereas pacts do not. Interesting anecdotal note: most people think of the so-called "international law" as contracts. But international treaties are just pacts because no mechanism of enforcement exists or (short of war) can exist -- nations are sovereign. Whereas, national laws are contracts -- they can be enforced by domestic administrative authorities.
AnonymousInteresting anecdotal note: most people think of the so-called "international law" as contracts. But international treaties are just pacts because no mechanism of enforcement exists or (short of war) can exist -- nations are sovereign. Whereas, national laws are contracts -- they can be enforced by domestic administrative authorities.
I can't agree with this "interesting anectodal note". Claiming that international law which is actually based on international treaties is unenforceable, because these treaties are in fact agreements rather than contracts is incorrect. Nations, or more precisely "states" are sovereign which means that they are indipendent from any internal or external power's influence in their acting. But this does not mean that they can do whatever they want - even violate the treaties they concluded! The Charter of UN prescribes as one of the basic principles of inertational law the principle of "pacta sunt cervanda" (treaties should be kept) which means that the states are not obliged to conclude a treaty, but when doing so, they are legally obliged to fulfill the obligations prescribed in it. The same principle is vested in the Vienna Convention on International Treaties and it is part of so called "hard-core law" which always has to be followed.
Concerning the enforcement of international treaties, yes, this is a more complicated matter than in a single state's jurisdiction. But every treaty usually prescribes an authority which watches over the keeping of this treaty and it has and sanctions for breach of the contract are also usually prescribed in the treaty itself. Furthermore, treaties concluded on the platform of the United Nations are "backed" by the power of UN, which means that in case of breach of the contract, UN can impose collective actions against the breaching state.
So what kind of unenforceability do you mean?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Quite interesting discussion!!!. Now, I must translate a text on insurance into English, but I got confused, should I say "Insruance Contract" or "Insurance Agreement" concerning an Insurance Policy?. Accoridng to what I have read here, I am believeing that "Insurunce Contract" would be the best option, what do you think?
You understood it correctly, it's Insurance Contract
what is difference between contract and agreement
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Please, read all the messages above and then ask what exactly you don't understand
Show more