What makes a hand-written contract legally binding? Does ‘I, Bob Bobley, agree to pay Joe Billy-Bob $500’ signed by Bob Bobley, Joe Billy-Bob, and a witness do the trick?
What you have described is not a contract, but a gift. So let’s change it to read “I, Bob Bobley, agree to pay Joe Billy-Bob $500 for his really nifty riding lawn mower.”
Although I don’t have my copy of the UCC with me (although I’m sure it’s available on the net), that would almost certainly qualify as a valid contract, even if written in crayon on a restaurant napkin, even without a witness. Objective manifestation of intent is the key: as long as an outside observer would conclude that Bob and Joe seriously intended the written transaction to occur, it does, regardless of form.
Contracts need a few elements, and none of them specify what they’re written on. Or with. Or where. You could dash off a contract saying “I, Jim Bob, will give Joe Earl Carter fifty bucks if he gets off his ass and moves that goddamned car 'round back so’s it don’t look ugly in front of everyone.” on a bar napkin in pen and if you sign it and you can get Joe Earl to sign it, it’s valid.
That assumes Joe Earl isn’t drunk. And that he doesn’t think it’s a joke. And that it’s legal (which it might not be, if that ain’t Joe Earl’s car). If either party is unable to form consent (because they are under the influence of drugs, fraud, coercion, or minority), or doesn’t think it’s a real deal (the out actors use when there’s a contract in the script), or cannot legally perform the action (the contracts for contract killings fall into this trap), the contract is DOA. There are probably other factors I’m overlooking, but those seem to be the most obvious.
Otherwise, it includes consideration (quid pro quo in the Latin, meaning each side gets something out of the deal), an important part of the equation (as Opus1 pointed out), and it’s written, which isn’t needed but is really convenient if one party decides to back out later.
As I said, oral contracts can be binding, especially if one side or the other has a witness to call in before a civil court if someone tries to break the deal. Written contracts are easier to defend, because they’re right out in the open and don’t rely on someone’s memory. But AFAIK, that’s a convenience.
IANAL, but this stuff I learned in high school. I just don’t remember all of it right now. 
Thanks guys!
The Constitution is handwritten.
Some contracts do require a written instrument – typically the transfer of an interest in property, the engagement of someone to perform work which may take more than one year, and any transaction which involves more than a certain amount – $10,000, IIRC. This is called the “statute of frauds” and is a requirement in most states, although some have abolished it. However, a hand-written contract does suffice for the statute of frauds.
The real tough one is a will. Wills are not contracts and the requirements to make a will (in most states) are much more formal than contracts, typically. In many states a will must be typed, signed and witnessed through a very specific procedure. That’s why “Make a will” software is a very bad idea – most people can use it to make a document that will serve as a will if properly executed according to state law, but then they fail to get it properly executed, because in most states execution is so arcane.
Some states do allow a handwritten, or “holographic,” will. The trend is IIRC to move away from this, but there are many states which still accept them. Typically the execution requirements for holographs are much less formal as long as the person claiming under the will can prove that the handwriting really is the decedant’s.
–Cliffy
P.S. If this question was motivated by anything other than idle curiosity, you need to consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction, fully and completely conversant with the facts of the matter, and expert in this area of the law. I am none of these things. You are not my client. I am not your lawyer.
I love it when they do that.
Generally agree with Cliffy, including his disclaimer.
In my state, there is no $10,000 statute of frauds, but we do have the other two that he mentions. Most guarantees and contracts for the sale of goods above $500 (UCC 2-201) also must be in writing.
That leaves out a lot of contracts. I’m defending a case involving the $500,000 sale of a dental practice where there was no signed contract. I have a statute of frauds argument (there was a noncompete covenant that was to last more than a year), but it’s weak.
You do?
Then I am not your lawyer either.
so if you have a hand written contract and its notarised, you really wouldn’t have to worry about someone saying its a fake ?
What do you mean by notarized? If you mean that a notary witnesses the signature of both parties, then that is very good evidence that the signatures are not forgeries, but it is not ironclad – the other party might be able to prove that the notary was fooled as to the identity of the person signing in said party’s name or that the notary was in collusion with you to verify what she knew was a forged signature. If by notarized you mean you have an executed handwritten document and then get a notary to witness a copy you make of it, then that has no bearing at all.
In both these situations, there is no difference between a handwritten and a typed contract – whatever a notarization might mean, it means the same thing on either.
N.B. The above applies to U.S. law – your spelling of “notarised” suggests you might be in the UK, which may have different rules. (I understand more is done with notaries over there than here). And if you’re from a civil law system then I have no idea how a notarization functions, although I know it is very different than in U.S. law.
–Cliffy
P.S. The disclaimer in my previous postscript applies to this and any other post I may make in this thread.
No I am in the US- I just spell things UK alot LOL
I gave my last response some more thought - there is another statute of frauds in Article I of the UCC that applies to all contracts for the sale of personal property not otherwise addressed in the code, if the contract is worth more than $5000.
It’s an atypical statute, in that it doesn’t make the entire contact unenforceable, just limits recovery to $5000.
Also, even if a statute applies and the contract must be in writing, an oral contract can be take out of the statute and enforced if there is partial or full performance. (I buy $50,000 in widgets from you. You accept delivery and use the widgets, but never sign a contract. Article II $500 statute of frauds governing the sale of goods can’t be used by the buyer, because he has acknowledged the contract by performing as if it exists.)
(Cliffy’s disclaimer applies to this and any other reponse I make in this thread, and also to anything I ever write on this board or anywhere else.)
(My disclaimer applies to this thread, this board, every other board, and the remainder of the universe.)
(So nobody has to scroll up, my disclaimer was IANAL, or I Am Not A Lawyer.)
Hee, widgets, consideration, UCC…I feel like I’m back in law school…
Cliffy, I’m stealin yer’ disclaimer, sue me!
My disclaimer applies in this thread and every other thread in throughout the entire universe and for all time, including that time which has already passed.
Oh wait, I didn’t post a disclaimer.
Anyways, I’m interested in the whole “handwritten wills on the way out” thing. I’ve never heard of such a thing. I’m wondering if perhaps there’s some conflation between “wills” and letters of the deceased’s intent which go by various names in different states. Wisconsin recognizes a letter that Aunt Tillie writes that says “I want Gladys Johnson to have my gold bracelet” as binding under certain conditions but it is not considered a “will” and does not have the same requirements (or power) that a will would have.
He’ll never catch you if you cheese it back to Blackacre.
They’re called a “holographic wills”, Otto and are an unusual exception to the many formalities of witnessing, attestation, etc. that wills usually have to be executed with. In jurisdictions that recognize them, they are valid wills under the law just as the more formal documents are. A majority of states still recognize them. Wisconsin apparently does, but treats them as any other will and doesn’t excuse the witnessing requirement like many other states do.
In Texas, a holographic will is a legally binding will if wholly in the testators handwriting and signed by him, if executed with testamentary intent. This is true even if unwitnessed, and no matter what they’re written on. If I write “I leevs evrythin I owenes to my tru luvs Shirlene, sined pravnik” on an outhouse door, that’s satisfactory to establish a holographic will. There have been holographic will written on purses, the bottom of drawers, and bathroom bars in barrooms that have been deemed legally sufficient.
…“bathroom walls”
They’re called holographic wills. Some states allow, some don’t.