Memorandum can be considered as an extremely formal way of written communication. This does not create a relationship between the writer and the reader. From the perspective of Dean Archeson statement on memorandum, it becomes evident to analyse the effort put in by a writer in adhering to ethical and legal implications along with securing his own rights. Several changes can be made in reference with this particular memorandum (Porter, 2008). This has also been identified as being cost effective in nature that is in favour of the writer. Even though they are formal, the level of formal can be adjusted in accordance with the preference of the writer. It is not necessary for drafting a memorandum, but it is still preferred to be drafted by the writer.
In usual sense, there is omission in the complimentary closing, salutation and inside address. This also does not give any rise to disputes in comparison with the oral form of communication as the memorandum has the potential to enact as an evidence of what is being stated by the writer. In addition to this, it contributes in acting as a snapshot of timeline (Contrubis, 2011). However, drafting a memorandum can even involve less amount of cost. Also, the memorandums are mostly written by the writer for a short duration of time. All of the content within the memorandum is a form of evidence that is available for the protection of the writer.