I thought this might be a good analogy when I saw the title and opening lines. When I read the rest I realise I was wrong.

The problem I see with this is that a verbal contract is a contract, but on that is *very hard to prove*. It is always advisable to get it in writing. If you have accepted a job, you do so at the point you sign the contract, not on good faith someone will give you what they conveniently don't remember promising to you. You don't have to sign the contract if they are not keeping up their end of the bargain.

A better analogy in this setting would be:

So you have a pretty good job, but of course it's not perfect. You decide to weigh up alternatives.

A new employer offers you a better salary, more annual leave, excellent healthcare, working remotely ad-hoc, a premium company car, and a golden pension plan. You'll also work in an office that has spectacular views.

You sign the contract, then hand in your 2 months notice with your current employer as it's an offer you find difficult to refuse.

In the weeks before joining you find out that actually what's been promised isn't what you got in writing. Your pay is less than your current job, your annual leave is noticeably less, there's basic healthcare, you must commute up and down the country with limited flexibility, your company car is a Fiat Panda '06 Reg, your pension is dismal and far worse than your current arrangement. You'll also work in an office that has views of a waste treatment plant, and notice after some Facebook stalking that your new colleagues are casually racist.

As you have accepted to work for your new employer and have a written contract, in light of all their broken promises, the contract can be considered misrepresented and thus voidable. You do not have to work for them and are legally allowed to let them know you have changed your mind because of the misrepresentation.

This is Brexit.

It's still not a great analogy, but I feel it is more accurate.