人们缺乏认识到，口头协议在许多情况下同书面协议一样具有法律约束力。本票的主要内涵在于促使当事人在主合同中额外加入。在Hoyt ‘s Pty Ltd诉Spencer一案中，房东口头承诺，如果承租人考虑签署合同，房东将不行使终止主合同的权利。房东终止了主合同，而房客的上诉被法院驳回。重要的是，不要仅在执行文件时才假定存在合同。在执行合同条款时，满足合同的每一个重要组成部分和实质性存在的证据可以被认为是充分的。
In the normal sense, any oral contract enables the enforcement of written contract. However, major difficulties are faced in the adequate determination of contract terms and agreements because of the overall nature. The disagreements of oral contract hold the tendency of becoming the word of the parties. There are key decisions about the party without upholding each and every obligation. The entire offer provides reflect the overall readiness to contract certain terms as preferred by the offeror. If the offered accepts the terms, there will be a formation of binding contract.
There is lack of awareness in the fact that verbal agreements have legal binding in a number of cases as written agreements. The key intension of the promissory note focuses on inducing additional party entry within the principal contract. In the case of Hoyt’s Pty Ltd v Spencer, a landlord made an oral promise for not exercising the right to terminate in the main contract if the tenant considered signing the contract. Landlord turned out to terminate the principal contract while appeal of tenant had been dismissed under the court of law. It is significant not to have an assumption about the existing contract only when the document is executed. Satisfying each and every important component of a contract and evidence of substantive existence can be considered sufficient in the enforcement of contract terms.