Baillieu Valuation of VEC, page-386

In a commercial context as between a listed company and commercial lender there is a rebuttable presumption that any agreement reached (whether it's called a; 'heads of agreement', 'agreement', 'contract', 'MOU', or 'flying purple people eater') between them is intended to create binding legal obligations unless there are specific words contained in the agreement that the whole or any part of it is not intended to be legally binding. A great WA case involving Anaconda Nickel Ltd, as it then was, is authority that an agreement reached by way of an exchange of letters whereby both parties intended to enter into a formal written contract at a later date was a legally enforceable contract.

Agreements and contracts can be verbal or written and are equally as enforceable irrespective of the form. The only difference there is the ease with which one can properly identify the terms of a verbal agreement and that presents an evidentiary issue that is absent where a written agreement/contract exists.

You don't need a witness for a company's signature on a legal document. Indeed, a witness is only actually required if it is to be executed by an individual as a deed, or where a specific legislative provision requires a witness.

@rastes was attempting to make the point that somehow because in @Mutley8's comment where he said there was a signed 'agreement' between VEC and FT therefore the obligations on FT to provide funding were not binding.

Frankly, such a point is demonstrably wrong and in attempting to invite rastes to explain how he/she came to that view it became abundantly clear that the position was incapable of explanation, and hence there was the resort to 'google it' as a means of deflection.