在最新的上诉法院案子Voitchovsky v. Gibson, 2022 BCCA 428中，法官维持了一个口头协议的效力。以下是具体内容。
在这个案子中，法官判定双方在婚姻开始的时候有一个口头协议，并且在婚姻持续的时间里一直认可并执行这个协议。法官在考虑本问题是考虑的因素是：
- When the court is faced with an alleged oral agreement, it is necessary to look not only at the words used, but also at whether the parties’ conduct is consistent with the oral agreement; （当法院面对被指控的口头协议时，不仅要看所使用的词语，还要看当事人的行为是否与口头协议一致;）
- The test for a binding and enforceable agreement is “whether the parties have indicated to the outside world, in the form of the objective reasonable bystander, their intention to contract and the terms of such contract”（对具有约束力和可执行的协议的检验标准是“当事人是否以客观合理的旁观者的形式向外界表明了他们的合同意图和合同条款”;）;
- The determination of the outward manifestation of the parties’ intentions is contextual and takes into account the parties’ communications as well as their conduct before and after the agreement is made （解合背景情况通过双方外在的动作而确定双方意图，并考虑到当事人的通信以及他们在达成协议前后的行为;）;
- The parties must have reached consensus on the essential terms of their agreement and failure to reach this “meeting of the minds” means the agreement will fail for lack of certainty. This inquiry is an objective one, such that the actual state of mind and personal knowledge of the parties is not relevant （各方必须就其协议的基本条款达成共识，未能达成这种“意见一致”意味着协议将因缺乏确定性而失败。这种调查是客观的，因此当事方的实际心态和个人所知无关紧要;）; and
- The question is “not what the parties subjectively had in mind but whether their conduct was such that a reasonable person would conclude that they intended to be bound” and in analyzing this conduct, courts can consider the surrounding circumstances（判断原则是“不是当事人主观上的想法，而是他们的行为是否足以让一个客观理性的人得出结论，“他们打算受协议的约束”，在分析这种行为时，法院可以考虑背景情况。)
由上可见，这样的协议虽然可能被法院认可，但其实它需要很强的客观证据，风险是很大的。我们推荐您把协议写下来，可以更安全更快速地解决问题。
如果您有需求，请拨打我们的中文专线604 682 6466。
