However, the Tribunal refused to adopt the English position in its entirety, as the English Arbitration Act was different from that of the ILO in many respects. In particular, (a) the English Arbitration Act is not entirely based on the standard law of the CNUDCIR () nor does it contain it, which strictly overhauls judicial intervention in arbitration; (b) the English Arbitration Act deals with both domestic and international arbitrations, while the ILO deals only with international arbitrations; and (c) in England, it is possible for the parties to enter into contracts on the basis of the capacity of a court to determine their own material competence, for the benefit of the judicial treatment of these matters. In conclusion, oral agreements are legally applicable in court or in litigation. However, it is strongly recommended that agreements or contracts be reduced to a text composition. Oral chords are acceptable, but also extremely difficult to prove. It is and has always been on several evidence when they all point in a certain direction. In addition, Section 48 of the Registration Act, 1908, provides that all non-will documents duly registered under this Act, relating to personal or real property, take effect against any order, arrangement or declaration concerning that property, unless the agreement or declaration was accompanied or shipped with the property. However, there are other agreements in which the contract must be considered valid in writing, so that a court can determine the intentions of the party at the time of entry into force and not let the case exist in a « he said » situation. An example could be the sale of a car between the owner of the car and another party. Once the sale was completed, if the buyer claimed that the owner of the car had promised to repair the brakes, but not about that written promise, it is unlikely that the court would find it in the buyer`s favor, because as a commitment is not usually a condition for a sale. In its recent decision in the Malini Ventura/Knight Capital Pte Ltd- others  SGHC 225 case, the Singapore Supreme Court rejected an application for non-compliance with the SIAC arbitration procedure on the basis of the absence of an arbitration agreement, pursuant to Directive 6(2) of the International Arbitration Act (« IAA »). The Singapore Supreme Court first outlined the correct approach for determining such issues and found that the court could determine the issue as a pre-jurisdictional issue. In this case, the Singapore courts` respect for the principle of jurisdiction is again emphasized, so that the court has the first word on matters within its jurisdiction.
A promise is essentially an offer or proposal made by one person or institution to another. The agreement of the other leads to the acceptance of the offer; and reach an agreement. On the other hand, oral agreements are words, gestures, symbols by which one party transmits a promise or a series of promises to another, which becomes a valid oral agreement if accepted by the other party. They may be expressive or implicit. Valid oral agreements are legally applicable in court. It is not, however, of great probative value, because the agreement is obtained by the buer and by second-hand knowledge. In the case of litigation or legal action, it is difficult for the court to determine the true nature of the facts and terms of the agreement without the bias being applied. The applicant submitted that the signing of the guarantee was not its own, which means that there is no valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that, therefore, the Singapore courts, not the tribunal (which was already constituted), have jurisdiction to establish the existence of the arbitration agreement.