In these times of telephone and internet business and product orders it is not unusual to have outstanding invoices and receivables. In many cases given lack of previous contact and/or written agreements the thought that the monies properly due and owing for the provision of materials and services can be collected can be confusing. However it is not too late and the old saying of “a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on”, is in fact a fallacy not a rule. It will and have enforced oral agreement as outlined in the case of Schrempf v. Willchuk, 2013 ONSC 2863 (CanLII) which states;
 On the first issue of whether an oral agreement existed, in Picavet v. Clute, 2012 CarswellOnt 4575 (ON S.C.), Healey J. at para. 9 summarized that where there is no written contract documenting the alleged agreement “the court must examine everything occurring between the two parties that is relevant to the alleged agreement in order to decide whether a contract exists.”
 Paragraph 15 of the decision of Cavarzan J. in Summers v. Sawyer, 2005 CarswellOnt 4001 (ON S.C.), provides as follows with respect to binding oral agreements:
Whether or not a binding oral agreement was formed in the circumstances here is a question which engages what has been called the objective principle of contract formation. As stated in S.M. Waddams, The Law of Contracts (5th Edition) at p. 103:
The principle function of the law of contracts is to protect reasonable expectations engendered by promises.
In addition to the enforcement of an oral agreement the Courts will enforce what is known as a claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meriut which is a fancy latin phrase essentially meaning you are entitled to be paid for what you have earned or provided as outlined in the case of Goulimis Construction Ltd. v. Jason Smith, Eva Klein and Bank of Montreal, 2014 ONSC 1239 (CanLII) which states;
 The courts generally will grant recovery on the basis of quantum meruit where a party supplies services and materials to another at their request, encouragement or acquiescence, whether under a quasi-contract or no contract, and where it would be unjust for this other party to retain the benefit. The court in the above noted Rafal decision reiterated this basic proposition at paragraph 30, again referring to the Fridman text:
Quantum meruit will be available if the services in question were furnished at the request or with the encouragement or acquiescence of the opposing party in circumstances that render it unjust for the opposing party to retain the benefit conferred by the provision of the services: Fridman, Restitution, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1992 at 290-92; Nicholson v. St. Denis (1975), 57 C.L.R. (3d) 699 (Ont.C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused,  1 S.C.R. x (S.C.C.).