Nina Parkhurst owned a ranch and asked her son, Doug Boykin, to move to it and manage it for her. Boykin and his wife moved to the ranch and managed it for several years. they talked with Parkhurst many times, urging her to transfer 49 percent of the ranch to them. Parkhurst said she had thought and talked about possibly transferring the ranch but had made no decision. the Boykins claimed they were on the ranch under an oral contract with Parkhurst and that the oral contract also entitled them to a 49 percent interest in the ranch. she sued them and asked the court to declare that there was no contract. was there a contract?

No there was no contract, there was at best an agreement to agree (an agreement based on understanding that a future arrangement can be made).

Nina said she was still thinking about her son's proposal and had not decided yet, so there was no contract.

Oral contracts is a spoken agreement between two parties that may be legally binding.

Breach of oral contract can be hard to prove since it is not written down.

An oral agreement between family members is not enough to be considered a contract.

Explanation:

employers prefer to hire ingenious, resourceful people because ingenious people may be more liable to engage in unethical deportment as they can cerebrate outside of the box