In many cases of oral offer and acceptance, the parties intend to reduce the contract to writing, but such reduction is not effected. The validity of the oral agreement in such cases depends on the intention of the parties. If the parties intend the oral agreement to be binding, and the written contract to be merely for convenience as evidence of the exact terms of the oral agreement, such oral agreement is valid.1 Accordingly the agreement which is reached informally by means of letters and telegrams, oral conversation, and the like, is binding as soon as the offer is accepted, although a subsequent written contract is contemplated.2 If it is agreed between an insurance company and the insured that the risk shall attach as soon as the application is accepted and before the policy issues, full effect will be given to such agreement. The fact that a written policy of insurance is to be issued subsequently does not render such oral contract of insurance invalid.3 It has been said that clear proof of such oral contract is necessary.4 On the same principle a written contract, providing for a general release in the future, is binding, so that the releasor can not insist on a subsequent release different in legal effect from that agreed upon.5 If a complete oral contract is entered into, such contract is not rendered invalid by the fact that it has been dictated to the stenographer of one of the parties, that such contract was to be written out in duplicate and after both parties have signed each copy, each party is to have one of such duplicates.6 If the parties enter into an oral agreement, and it is understood that such agreement is to be typewritten by the stenographer who has taken it down in shorthand, and that she is to mail two copies to the adversary party, who is to sign both and return one, the fact that such contract is broken before it is reduced to writing, does not render it inoperative.7 If the contract is reduced to writing and delivered after performance has begun, it is governed by the rules of evidence which apply to a written contract and not by those which apply to an oral contract.8

1 United States. Jenkins & Reynolds Co. v. Alpena Portland Cement Co., 147 Fed. 641, 77 C. C. A. 625; Whitted v. Fairfield Cotton Mills, 210 Fed. 725; United States v. P. J. Carlin Const. Co., 224 Fed. 859, 138 C. C. A. 449.

Arkansas. Alexander v. Hollis, 115 Ark. 589, 171 S. W. 915.

Kentucky. Tucker v. Sheeran, 155 Ky. 670, 160 S. W. 176.

Louisiana. Toledo Bridge & Crane Co. v. Jeffris, 141 La. 168, 74 So. 893.

Maine. Berman v. Rosenberg, 115 Me. 19, 97 Atl. 6.

Minnesota. Lamoreaux v. Weisman, 136 Minn. 207, 161 N. W. 504.

Montana. Long v. Needham, 37 Mont. 408, 96 Ac. 731.

North Carolina. Rankin v. Mitchem, 141 N. Car. 277, 53 S. E. 854; Teal v. Templeton, 149 N. Car. 32, 62 S. E. 737.

Virginia. Adams v. Hazen, - Va. - , 96 S. E. 741.

Washington. Loewi v. Long, 76 Wash. 480, 136 Ac. 673.

Wisconsin. Jungdorf v. Little Rice, 156 Wis. 466, 145 N. W. 1092.

2 United States. Jenkins & Reynolds Co. v. Alpena Portland Cement Co., 147 Fed. 641, 77 C. C. A. 625; Wehner v. Bauer, 160 Fed. 240.

Arkansas. Emerson v. Stevens Grocer Co., 95 Ark. 421, 130 S. W. 541; Skeen v. Ellis, 105 Ark. 513, 152 S. W. 153; Friedman v. Schleuter, 105 Ark. 580, 151 S. W. 696.

California. Nash v. Kreling (Cal.), 56 Ac. 262.

Colorado. Cochrane v. Mining Co., 16 Colo. 415, 26 Ac. 780.

Kentucky. Hollerbach & May Contract Co. v. Wilkins, 130 Ky. 51, 112 S. W. 1126.

Iowa. Herring v. Ins. Co., 123 la. 533, 99 N. W. 130.

Kansas. Post v. Davis, 7 Kan. App. 217, 52 Ac. 903.

Louisiana. Toledo Bridge & Crane Co. v. Jeffris, 141 La. 168, 74 So. 893.

Massachusetts. Drummond v. Crane. 159 Mass. 577, 38 Am. St. Rep. 460, 23 L. R. A. 707, 35 N. E. 90.

Missouri. Allen v. Choteau, 102 Mo. 309, 14 S. W. 869; Green v. Cole, 103 Mo. 70, 15 S. W. 317.

Minnesota. Lamoreaux v. Weisman, 136 Minn. 207, 161 N. W. 504.

Montana. Long v. Needham, 37 Mont. 408, 96 Ac. 731.

New York. Sanders v. Fruit Co., 144 N. Y. 209, 43 Am. St. Rep. 757, 29 L. R. A. 431, 39 N, E. 75.

Where the parties intend the oral agreement merely as a step in the preliminary negotiations leading up to a written contract which is to be the only binding agreement between the parties, the oral agreement is, of itself, of no validity,9 and accordingly, no action can be brought against one of the parties who refuses to perform. Either party may avoid liability if the formal written contract has not been executed.10 If the parties agree that the written contract is to be signed as a condition precedent to its validity, no contract exists until the contract is reduced to writing and signed by the

North Carolina. Rankin v. Mitch em, 141 N. Car. 277, 53 S. E. 854; Teal v. Templeton, 149 N. Car. 32, 62 S. E. 737; Gooding v. Moore, 150 N. Car. 195, 63 S. E. 895; Billings v. Wilby, 175 N. Car. 571, 96 S. E. 50.

Ohio. Blaney v. Hoke, 14 O. S. 292.

Oklahoma. Western Roofing Tile Co. v. Jones, 26 Okla. 209, 109 Ac. 225.

Texas. Weaver v. Simmons, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 154, 38 S. W. 1140.

Washington. Loewi v. Long, 76 Wash. 480, 136 Ac. 673.

Wisconsin. Lawrence v. Ry. Co., 84 Wis. 427, 54 N. W. 797; Cohn v. Plumer, 88 Wis. 622, 60 N. W. 1000.

3 Robinson v. United States Benevolent Society, 132 Mich. 695, 102 Am. St. Rep. 436, 94 N. W. 211; Boos v.

Aetna Ins. Co., 22 N. D. 11, 132 N. W. 222; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Whitman, 75 O. S. 312, 79 N. E. 459.

4 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Whitman, 75 O. S. 312, 79 N. E. 459.

5 Trustees of Amherst College v. Ritch, 151 N. Y. 282, 37 L. R. A. 305.. 45 N. E. 876.

6 Hollerbach & May Contract Co. v. Wilkins, 130 Ky. 51, 112 S. W. 1126.

7 Hollerbach & May Contract Co. v. Wilkins, 130 Ky. 51, 112 S. W. 1126.

8 Goss v. Northern Ac. Hospital Assn., 50 Wash. 236, 96 Ac. 1078.