Q: Responsibility for formalizing informal agreement in good faith

A: You could raise that argument, but it could be challenged as well. It's possible the other side could present various other explanations for their conduct, other than manifesting an intent to deceive. The post is somewhat generally worded. If you reached out to California attorneys to discuss, it's possible they might be able to offer more meaningful input with the benefit of additional details about the agreement and more specifics about the conduct. Good luck

A: In California law, both parties generally share responsibility for formalizing informal agreements, regardless of their legal sophistication. However, courts often scrutinize situations where a more knowledgeable party may have taken advantage of someone with less legal experience.

The failure to formalize an agreement isn't automatically considered deceptive intent. Many factors come into play, including the nature of the agreement, the relationship between parties, and whether there was pressure or manipulation involved. If you can show that the other party deliberately avoided formalizing the agreement to gain an unfair advantage, this could support your case for demonstrating deceptive intent.

When examining good faith obligations, California courts look at the overall conduct and circumstances. They consider whether reasonable steps were taken to fulfill informal promises and if any party acted unfairly. You might want to gather evidence of any attempts you made to formalize the agreement, communications between parties, and any actions taken in reliance on the informal understanding. Speaking with a legal professional about your specific situation would help clarify your rights and potential remedies.