If you think having a written contract will save you more than a oral contract, then I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
I would obviously prefer written contracts and I fight incessantly with clients to get them to do so, but have been on many cases with both written and unwritten contracts. If the contract is written you still are forced to deal with the intentions of the parties and what the words that are written mean. "It depends on what your definition of "is" is."
Most oral contracts can be proven through the conduct of the parties afterwards and what provisions are not included in the oral contract with be supplied as a matter of law.
The summary and the article it links to make it seem like much more of a big deal than it actually is:
It's a procedural motion for a stay pending appeal. It's not a policy endorsement, it's them looking to have the judge's ruling put on hold until appeals are over.
That's not to say that Obama won't wind up agreeing with Bush on this, just that this particular filing doesn't actually indicate that.
Agreed, to an extent. They appealed a ruling that the court issued that the government could not rely on the state secrets privilege to withhold documents from plaintiff's counsel. Their filing states they are seeking to stay proceedings pending their interlocutory appeal of the judge's ruling. Basically, they are stating that if they proceed with the case, then the appellate court's ruling on the state secrets privilege will be moot because information that they regard as subject to the state secret privilege will have already been disclosed to plaintiff's counsel. So, although not a directly a policy endorsement, they are still claiming the state secrets privilege applies and that the information should not have to be turned over to the plaintiffs. Any real difference here?