In reply to Mac1982:
> (In reply to EddInaBox)
> A 'verbal contract' wasn't mentioned once in the question - there was only a verbal offer.
First two sentences of the O.P.
‘Friend offered a job after an Interview with a University. Told by Chairman of Interview panel they were best candidate etc offered the job which my friend accepted (all verbally)’ that is clearly an an offer and acceptance, we also know from subsequent posts that the terms of employment were known, those are the conditions for a contract to be valid, it's the very definition of a contract.
> For the second time - she wasn't given a 'verbal contract' she was given a verbal offer.
Which she accepted,
offer + acceptance = contract !
> You'd get laughed out of court if you tried to contest it! all the employer would need to say is "no - we didn't offer her the role" end of.
That would depend on the evidence given by both sides, it would be a civil case and thus decided on the balance of probability, not reasonable doubt, I don't think anyone would be laughing about it though.
> My job isn't to decide if verbal offers or written ones are binding - I'm just not stupid enough to think a verbal offer is a definite one. So I suggest you don't tell me how to do my job.
You said
‘I work in recruitment and deal witht his kind of thing week in week out’ are you now saying dealing with this sort of thing isn't part of your job?
> I 'suggest' you stop thinking you're some kind of expert on this when you have no experience whatsoever in the matter.
I made it clear I have no legal training, I presented a link for the O.P. so that he could decide for himself if my interpretation had any validity. With your experience in such matters surely you can provide me with a link to a case study or the relevant act of parliament to help me understand why I'm wrong?
> I was offering some advice to the person as I DO have experience in the matter...and I'm sure they'd prefer a 'real-life' answer...not some irrelevant examples from google.
I tend to think the O.P. wanted the correct answer, I gave an answer which I backed up with evidence, you seem to want people to believe your answer on the grounds that you know you are right, how do we know you are right if all we have is your claim that you are with no explanation?