在最新的上訴法院案子Voitchovsky v. Gibson， 2022 BCCA 428中，法官維持了一個口頭協定的效力。 以下是具體內容。
在這個案子中，法官判定雙方在婚姻開始的時候有一個口頭協議，並且在婚姻持續的時間里一直認可並執行這個協定。 法官在考慮本問題是考慮的因素是：
- 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; （當法院面對被指控的口頭協定時，不僅要看所使用的詞語，還要看當事人的行為是否與口頭協定一致; ）
- 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“（對具有約束力和可執行的協定的檢驗標準是”當事人是否以客觀合理的旁觀者的形式向外界表明了他們的合同意圖和合同條款“; ）;
- 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 ismade （解合背景情況通過雙方外在的動作而確定雙方意圖，並考慮到當事人的通信以及他們在達成協定前後的行為; ）;
- 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 （各方必須就其協定的基本條款達成共識，未能達成這種“意見一致”意味著協定將因缺乏確定性而失敗。 這種調查是客觀的，因此當事方的實際心態和個人所知無關緊要; ）; 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（判斷原則是“不是當事人主觀上的想法，而是他們的行為是否足以讓一個客觀理性的人得出結論，”他們打算受協定的約束“，在分析這種行為時，法院可以考慮背景情況。 )
由上可見，這樣的協議雖然可能被法院認可，但其實它需要很強的客觀證據，風險是很大的。 我們推薦您把協定寫下來，可以更安全更快速地解決問題。
如果您有需求，請撥打我們的中文專線604 682 6466。
