Elements of a written contract

DublinWriter

Here's a hypothetical one for all you experts in Tort:

On a contract, where there is space for the signatories to sign, does the contract remain legally binding if the names of the signatories are not shown in print?

For example:

________________ signed on behalf of the customer

________________ signed on behalf of the supplier


...with no reference as to who is doing the signing? I'm thinking of a situation where the signature is basically a scribble and it's impossible to determine the actual signatory.

NoQuarter

DublinWriter wrote: »

Here's a hypothetical one for all you experts in Tort:

On a contract, where there is space for the signatories to sign, does the contract remain legally binding if the names of the signatories are not shown in print?

For example:

________________ signed on behalf of the customer

________________ signed on behalf of the supplier


...with no reference as to who is doing the signing? I'm thinking of a situation where the signature is basically a scribble and it's impossible to determine the actual signatory.

Tort isnt contract

Anyways the answer is yes, there are no requirements in contract law to "print" your signature. A scribble (like my signature is) is perfectly valid.

DublinWriter

NoQuarter wrote: »

Tort isnt contract

Anyways the answer is yes, there are no requirements in contract law to "print" your signature. A scribble (like my signature is) is perfectly valid.

Thanks for that NoQuarter, the reason I mentioned Tort was in the context of one party being considered in breech of contract could that party claim the contract was invalid.

Interesting scenario.

NoQuarter

DublinWriter wrote: »

Thanks for that NoQuarter, the reason I mentioned Tort was in the context of one party being considered in breech of contract could that party claim the contract was invalid.

Interesting scenario.

Thats not tort law, thats still contract law. Tort law is car crashes and tripping and falling and that stuff.

If party A was claiming breach of contract, party B can definitely claim it's not valid but not on the argument youve mentioned above. Unless of course, it wasnt the persons own signature .

Procrastastudy

If the signatory deliberately fakes their signature then isn't there and action in the tort of deceit?

NoQuarter

Procrastastudy wrote: »

If the signatory deliberately fakes their signature then isn't there and action in the tort of deceit?

Maybe, but fraudulent misrep would be easier to prove.

seb65

NoQuarter wrote: »

Maybe, but fraudulent misrep would be easier to prove.

IMO, I don't see that it is fraudulent misrep as it doesn't posses the necessary elements of such, i.e. that it induces a person to contract.

If a person didn't sign the contract, then, barring an oral agreement, there's no contract and it's unenforceable. Additionally, if the contract is for the sale of land or goods over 10(?) euro and there's no record, any corresponding oral agreement is unenforceable.

NoQuarter

seb65 wrote: »

IMO, I don't see that it is fraudulent misrep as it doesn't posses the necessary elements of such, i.e. that it induces a person to contract.

If a person didn't sign the contract, then, barring an oral agreement, there's no contract and it's unenforceable. Additionally, if the contract is for the sale of land or goods over 10(?) euro and there's no record, any corresponding oral agreement is unenforceable.

I take your point but the presence of a fraudulent signature could entice someone into a contract, you could certainly make an argument for it depending on the circumstances. IMO The argument should be kept in contract as opposed to going under the tort of deceit which would be more similar to negligent misstatement.

Sale of Goods Act says 12 euro, but how unworkable is that! You couldnt buy a crate of beer without a contract in that case. Sale of land is different again, s.2 Statute of Frauds.

seb65

NoQuarter wrote: »

I take your point but the presence of a fraudulent signature could entice someone into a contract, you could certainly make an argument for it depending on the circumstances. IMO The argument should be kept in contract as opposed to going under the tort of deceit which would be more similar to negligent misstatement.

Sale of Goods Act says 12 euro, but how unworkable is that! You couldnt buy a crate of beer without a contract in that case. Sale of land is different again, s.2 Statute of Frauds.

I agree with you on it not being a matter under tort. We'll agree to disagree on neg misrep.

As for the low $ amount on SGA...I know right!

NoQuarter

seb65 wrote: »

I agree with you on it not being a matter under tort. We'll agree to disagree on neg misrep.

As for the low $ amount on SGA...I know right!

Fraudulent misrep, not negligent!

seb65

NoQuarter wrote: »

Fraudulent misrep, not negligent!

sorry, sorry, my bad.

How about just plain fraud? Can we agree on fraud?

NoQuarter

Absolutely!

Milk & Honey

seb65 wrote: »

IMO, I don't see that it is fraudulent misrep as it doesn't posses the necessary elements of such, i.e. that it induces a person to contract.

If a person didn't sign the contract, then, barring an oral agreement, there's no contract and it's unenforceable. Additionally, if the contract is for the sale of land or goods over 10(?) euro and there's no record, any corresponding oral agreement is unenforceable.

The writing requirements do not mean there is no contract. There may be a perfectly good contract but the courts won't enforce it because of lack of compliance with the statutory formalities.
That being said equity will not allow the statute to be used as an engine of fraud and may well enforce the contract by way of the doctrine of part performance.

seb65

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The writing requirements do not mean there is no contract. There may be a perfectly good contract but the courts won't enforce it because of lack of compliance with the statutory formalities.
That being said equity will not allow the statute to be used as an engine of fraud and may well enforce the contract by way of the doctrine of part performance.

I believe that's what I said? If a person did not sign the contract and there's a signatory on it, it cannot be assumed that there is a valid written agreement between the two parties. Unless, there is an oral agreement.

If there is no record of the agreement for certain types of contract, an oral agreement will also be unenforceable.

What's your issue, exactly?

NoQuarter

seb65 wrote: »

If there is no record of the agreement for certain types of contract, an oral agreement will also be unenforceable.

Unless there is fraud. The reason we got to this point is by considering signing a fake signature, not no signature at all.

So if there is a fake signature, the courts might take an equitable stance and enforce the contract. This is where IMO, fraudulent misrepresentation comes in.

You said:

If a person didn't sign the contract, then, barring an oral agreement, there's no contract and it's unenforceable.

M&H said:

The writing requirements do not mean there is no contract.

And then you replied:

I believe that's what I said?

Which its not what you said really.

Milk & Honey

seb65 wrote: »

I believe that's what I said? If a person did not sign the contract and there's a signatory on it, it cannot be assumed that there is a valid written agreement between the two parties. Unless, there is an oral agreement.

If there is no record of the agreement for certain types of contract, an oral agreement will also be unenforceable.

What's your issue, exactly?

What about part performance?

seb65

Milk & Honey wrote: »

What about part performance?

There has to be some evidence of a "meeting of the minds" whether spoken or written words. I can't just impose on a contract on you without your consent.

My posting had to do with if someone signed someone else's name without permission to an agreement. No court would uphold that as a contract.

jblack

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The writing requirements do not mean there is no contract. There may be a perfectly good contract but the courts won't enforce it because of lack of compliance with the statutory formalities.
That being said equity will not allow the statute to be used as an engine of fraud and may well enforce the contract by way of the doctrine of part performance.

Not just part performance; courts will look at unjust enrichment, restitution, estoppel etc.

Only certain types of contract are required to be in writing, the difficulty is proving there was a contract in existence.

It should also be noted that there has been a recent trend moving away from the requirement of consensus ad idem.

Kosseegan

seb65 wrote: »

There has to be some evidence of a "meeting of the minds" whether spoken or written words. I can't just impose on a contract on you without your consent.

My posting had to do with if someone signed someone else's name without permission to an agreement. No court would uphold that as a contract.

That is a privity defence. Nothing to do with written evidence of the contract

seb65

jblack wrote: »

Not just part performance; courts will look at unjust enrichment, restitution, estoppel etc.

Only certain types of contract are required to be in writing, the difficulty is proving there was a contract in existence.

It should also be noted that there has been a recent trend moving away from the requirement of consensus ad idem.

What recent developments have shown a departure? I'm interested.

jblack

seb65 wrote: »

What recent developments have shown a departure? I'm interested.

I have a paper at home discussing recent decisions in the UK on the topic, I'll find it when I'm home later and let you know.