I was wondering if tearing a written contract in half or quarters etc. really voids a contract. Is that true only in the movies?
Once a contract is signed (assuming it’s legal and everything) it can only be voided by mutual agreement of all the parties.
Now, there is a practical matter. If you tear up a signed contract immediately, before anybody gets a copy of it, how do they prove you ever signed anything? (We’ll assume for the sake of argument that they will not collect the pieces and Scotch-tape them back together.)
In real life, people don’t tend to pull this kind of dramatic stunt. They just don’t sign the thing in the first place.
Moved this thread from About This Message Board to General Questions, added descriptive thread title.
Gfactor
Administrator
Let’s assume a two-party contract, to make things simple. If both parties to a contract tore up their copies, that might be evidence of their mutual agreement to end the contract. However, if only one party destroys their copy, the other party does not have to accept that the contract is ended, and can still sue on the basis of the contract – and the party that’s torn up the contract is still entitled to their side of the bargain.
Example: Suppose person A decides to sell their house to person B for $100,000 dollars, and contracts are signed and copies exchanged. Person A then gets an offer of $120,000 for the house from person C, and therefore tears up their copy of the contract in the presence of person B. The contract still exists: B can sue for the performance of the transfer of the real estate, but A is still entitled to the payment of $100,000, even though their copy of the contract was torn up.
ETA: I’m not a lawyer, but this is elementary contract law.
**Giles **has it right. If the contracting parties all have an agreement shredding party with the understanding that the contract is voided, you could say the contract was voided by mutual discharge or mutual rescission. But it’s important to note that this only works if the parties intended to terminate the agreement. If they had a different understanding, or no understanding, the contract lives on.
If only one of them shreds the contract with the intention of announcing that he does not intend to perform the agreement, that’s repudiation.
What would be the point of a contract if you could just do that? The whole point is to create mutual obligations you can’t get out of.
Here’s a further question, though: What if you destroy all existing signed copies of the contract? Where, then, is the proof of the contract’s existence?
Similarly, I think this is where the “tearing up the contract” trope works: if you JUST signed it, then the Supporting Actor rushes in and reveals why you don’t need to sign away your life to this horrible jerk, and so you tear up the contract you just signed, BEFORE delivering the signed copy to the other party.
-
The agreement is a concept–not a document. What needs to be shown is mutual assent. The document is one way to prove that. In some cases, a contract must be written to be enforceable, but even in those cases, the existence of the written contract and its contents can be proved by testimony.
-
Few contracts that I’ve seen require delivery of a signed copy as a condition precedent. So once again, the horrible jerk could probably enforce the contract based on tetimony that the star signed the contract before tearing it up.
-
It’s a different story if:
a. The Supporting Actor reveals that the horrible jerk committed fraud in order to get the star to sign; or
b. This particular contract has a clause that has some sort of language like, “This contract may only be completed by the mutual delivery of copies of this memorandum, signed by both parties.”
c. Bonus points: Since most courts agree that a contract can be modified orally, even if it contains a clause that says it can only be modified in writing, horrible jerk could still claim that the parties orally (or by conduct) agreed to waive the exchange-of-copies condition. Of course, under the facts as given, he’d have to commit perjury to prevail.
I guess it’s the same as if it’s just an oral contract, or if one party tries to come in with a differently-worded copy and both parties claim that theirs is the actual original version that was executed.
The court decides, as finder of fact, which side they find more persuasive, based on evidence, testimony, who has the better lawyer and who’s wearing a nicer suit to court.
In the testimony of those who signed it and witnessed those signatures? Couldn’t depositions be taken to prove that the contract used to exist in printed form even if all physical copies of it had been destroyed.