What term describes an agreement which is not in the legally required form?

The term "unenforceable contract" accurately describes an agreement that, while it may have some elements of a contract, does not meet the legally required form. This means that, even though the parties may have intended to create a binding agreement, due to certain deficiencies—such as a lack of written form when required by law—the contract cannot be enforced in a court of law.

Such contracts might still exist and can be discussed or performed informally; however, if one party attempts to impose the agreement legally, the other party can argue that the contract is unenforceable due to its failure to adhere to necessary legal standards. This situation often arises in contracts that involve matters governed by statutes, such as those requiring written agreements for real estate transactions or contracts that cannot be fulfilled within one year.

In contrast, other terms like "invalid," "void," and "illegal" hold different legal implications. An "invalid contract" suggests that the contract never really existed in a legal sense, while a "void contract" is treated as if it never existed due to its nature, such as contracts involving illegal purposes. An "illegal contract" is specifically one that is unlawful and goes against public policy or law. These distinctions clarify why "unenforceable contract"