The District Court ruled in favour of the musicians in a case brought by the Finnish Musicians’ Union, finding that a verbal agreement had been concluded between the client and the performer and that the client did not have the right to terminate the agreement unilaterally. The ruling serves as a reminder that a verbal agreement is legally just as binding as a written agreement, and confirms that there is no general industry practice under which a client booking a performance could cancel an agreed performance 30 days before the event without liability for compensation. The Court of Appeal did not grant leave for continued consideration, and the District Court’s judgment therefore became final.
In spring 2026, District Court of South Karelia issued a ruling in favour of the members in a legal aid case brought by the Finnish Musicians’ Union. The case concerned the binding nature of a verbal performance agreement and the client’s right to cancel a performance.
The performance had originally been agreed by telephone between the parties. Following the call, the musicians sent the client a written confirmation of the agreed terms by email. The parties had not agreed on any right to cancel the performance when the agreement was made. Nevertheless, the client cancelled the performance approximately two months before the scheduled date, citing insufficient staff to organise the event.
According to the client, no binding agreement had been concluded and the discussions had merely been preliminary. The client also argued that, even if an agreement had been concluded, it had nevertheless had the right to cancel the performance 30 days before the scheduled date.
The District Court found that the parties had entered into a binding performance agreement. The court emphasised that a verbal agreement is legally as valid as a written agreement, although verbal agreements may give rise to evidentiary difficulties for both parties. The email sent after the telephone conversation, which was headed as an agreement and set out the agreed terms, strongly supported the musicians’ position that a binding agreement had been concluded. The court also noted that the client had never corrected the contents of the email and had subsequently referred to the matter specifically as the cancellation of the performance. In the court’s view, the wording of the text messages indicated that if no agreement had been reached concerning the performance, there would have been nothing to cancel. The court therefore found it established that the parties had entered into a verbal agreement.
The client also argued that there was a general industry practice under which a performance could be cancelled no later than 30 days before the agreed date. Without taking a position on whether such a practice exists when working with booking agencies, the District Court found that the existence of such a practice had not been established in a contractual relationship where the agreement is made directly between the performer and the client without a booking agency. As the parties had not expressly agreed on a right to cancel the performance, the client had no right to cancel it unilaterally.
The client was ordered to pay the musicians compensation corresponding to the agreed performance fee and to reimburse their legal costs. The client appealed the District Court’s judgment, but the Court of Appeal did not grant leave for continued consideration. The District Court’s judgment therefore became final.
Above all, the ruling serves as a reminder that a verbal agreement is, as a general rule, just as binding as a written agreement. In practice, however, verbal agreements often give rise to evidentiary difficulties. In the event of a dispute, it may be difficult to establish afterwards what was said in discussions between the parties, meaning that their views of what was agreed may differ significantly. Ultimately, what often matters is what each party is able to provide in support of their claims. Although the musicians in this case were able to establish that an agreement had been concluded, a written agreement is nevertheless always the recommended and by far the safest option for a musician due to the evidentiary difficulties associated with verbal agreements.
The District Court’s ruling also provides an important reminder about cancelling performances. In direct contractual relationships between a performer and a client, there is no general industry practice that would allow a client to cancel an agreed performance 30 days before the scheduled date without liability for compensation. If the parties wish to allow the performance to be cancelled without liability for compensation, or wish to agree on the financial consequences of cancellation, this should be clearly and expressly agreed when the performance agreement is concluded.