The legal strength of written vs. oral agreements in Norway

Many are familiar with the maxim that oral agreements are just as binding as written ones. This principle has its legal and historical roots in Christian V's Norwegian Law of 1687, specifically section 5-1-1. While this serves as an academic starting point even today, in practical terms, an oral agreement is generally not as binding as a written one. Several reasons contribute to this:

1. An oral agreement has weak evidentiary value
If a dispute arises over whether an oral agreement was made or what its terms were, parties often end up in a word-against-word situation. The party asserting that an agreement exists—or that it has specific content—bears the burden of proof. Norwegian case law has clearly stated that oral agreements must be documented to be upheld. This is not always straightforward and places oral agreements in a completely different category than written ones.

2. Presumption against the existence of an agreement without writing
While no one objects to simple, everyday agreements being made orally, when it comes to real estate or transactions involving significant value, it is expected that the agreement is made in writing. Case law has, for example, established a general presumption that agreed rights related to real estate are expressed in writing. Based on a Supreme Court decision (Rt. 1985 p. 1265), it is assumed that "very strong evidence" is required to accept a claim of a binding oral agreement related to rights to or in real estate. We believe similar considerations apply in other areas beyond real estate. The presumption that binding agreements require writing means that an oral agreement is, in practice, not as binding as a written one.

3. Legal provisions requiring written agreements to be binding
In several areas, the legislature has determined that agreements must be made in writing to be binding. In some cases, this requires the use of pen and paper, while in others, the use of written characters (electronic agreements) suffices. There are several reasons for enacting such provisions: to eliminate doubt about rights or obligations and to ensure that parties understand the seriousness by actually signing documents. Examples of agreements that must be made in writing include:

• Contracts for financial services under the Financial Contracts Act 2020/146 § 3-9
• Real estate agency agreements (Real Estate Brokerage Act 2007/73 § 6-4)
• Ground lease agreements (Ground Lease Act 1996/106 § 5)

In other cases, an oral agreement will not have the same legal effects as a written one. For example, writing is required to register a purchase agreement on a property.

4. Summary
For the reasons stated above, we believe the practical rule should be that agreements must be made in writing to be binding. Putting something in writing forces parties to consider the agreement's content and applicable terms. The clarity that comes from formalizing the agreement in writing benefits all parties involved.