Although not directly involved, I would have thought this column a perfect chance to reference the famous contract dispute involving “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.”
Does it matter if you sign a contract with a name that’s not your own?
Hah. This was a quickie. I simply didn’t think of it.
I read the recent column and came to this:
Any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing counts as a signature, and in some cases a letterhead or billhead satisfies the signature requirement.
So lets say, I didn’t want to be held to a contract or an agreement, but I was being pressured or something and just wanted to get the hell out of a situation and signed it falsely with a wrong name or even “I don’t agree”.
I don’t “present intention to authenticate a writing” I just don’t want to do whatever I feel like I’m being coerced to do, so write such a statement on the line
Is it a valid contract or agreement and am I bound by it?
You are always free to present evidence that you did not actually agree to the contract. But simply signing a false name won’t necessarily do the trick. Saying on the signature line “I am not agreeing to this contract” would be difficult to confuse for an acceptance. 
If you can show you were coerced into the contract, you will get relief even if you have signed with your own name.
Conversely, if you can’t show that, you will be in trouble no matter how you have signed.
But, of course, you could argue that the odd signature was evidence which corroborated your story of coercion - “why else would I sign ‘Napoleon Bonaparte’, except to let those thugs think for a minute or two that they had what they wanted, so I’d have a chance to get the hell out of there?”
The only thing to add to this is that formation is judged according to an objective standard — would a reasonable third person, on the basis of the outward acts of the two contracting parties, conclude that an offer has been made and accepted. See, e.g., Lucy v. Zehmer.
Not all contracts need to be written, so if the contract were formed before the agreement was reduced to writing, you may be on the hook regardless of what mark you make at the bottom of the page. Assuming that the signature moment is contemporaneous with concluding the bargaining, a fake name may or may not get you off the hook. Obviously, things like “Not Accepted” suggest a lack of acceptance. Most people, I think, would agree that signing something like “Mike Litteris” or “Hugh Jass” or “Biggus Dickus” would also scuttle any claim to the reasonable appearance of acceptance (again, assuming that the contract had not already been made earlier).
On the other hand, if your name is, say, “Vivian Darkbloom” and you sign all other documents “Vivian Darkbloom” but you sign this one as “Vyvyan Dark-Bloom” I think it is a vastly more difficult case to prove that you were plainly not being serious.
Coercion is always a defense, whether you sign a fake name, your real name, or under oath before a notary.
I merged the thread called signing a contract incorrectly into this one because they were about the same topic.
Gfactor
Moderator
This is a good point. I’ll add, that as we can have oral contracts, contracts can be accepted by conduct. E.g., C.J.S. *Contracts *§ 48
and see, In re The Score Board, Inc., 238 B.R. 585 (D.N.J. 1999) (part performance and acceptance of benefits were adequate to satisfy the offer and acceptance requirements of contract formation.)
and *Tubelite Co., Inc. v. Original Sign Studio, Inc., * 176 Ohio App.3d 241, 891 N.E.2d 820 (conduct by both parties that recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for the sale of goods.)
But see, Beretta v. Tucson Trap & Skeet Club, 2007 WL 5556383 (Ariz. App. 2007) (offeror may require acceptance by signature, in which case oferee cannot accept by other means).
I was being released after four weeks from the mental health unit of one of Nashville’s largest and most reputable hospitals. The woman in bookkeeping was asking me to sign an agreement to pay the hospital _________ amount of money for my stay. The space was literally blank. I told her I was crazy, but not that crazy. She pretended to be indignant that I wouldn’t sign the agreement.
Now I had very good insurance that would be taking care of all but 10% of the bill. But wasn’t this woman abusive to try to get me to sign such a contract under the circumstances? Should she have been reported? The father of one of my best friends was on the Board of Trustees for the hospital.
This was all thirty years ago, so you won’t be affecting anyone’s destiny with your answer.
I am not a lawyer, but I would think that “blank amount of money” would fail under the “meeting of the minds” rule whether signed or not.
Prove it was blank when you signed. :eek:
Another strategy that might work (might not) would be to fill in some more or less reasonable amount (mark it “not to exceed” -?) - and let the clerk go through whatever hassle of explaining to her bosses why she tried to get you to sign a blank check; failed to do so; and is still wasting time on this. This will at least be some hassle to her that she won’t easily escape. You’re not, after all, being absolutely unreasonable about it. But nope, INAL.
I never sign my paychecks, I just write “For deposit only” on them, and deposit them into an ATM. I was thinking today, what if I did that with a “check” where you’re also agreeing to sign up for some kind of service*? Could I argue that I never agreed to their service (maybe I honestly never noticed the small print)?
- I remember this mostly from when Sprint and MCI were just entering the phone business ~25 years ago, but I think I’ve seen more recent examples.
Those checks state that cashing the check is considered agreeing to the service. Ergo, your signature is not required.
Civil Guy said:
Write in $12, then sign it. She can’t hassle you for not signing, and if she complains, tell her to come back when she knows how much the cost will be and you will consider it then.
And see my post about acceptance by conduct.
Don’t both of those answers hinge on my knowing that these “checks” have the service agreement on them? If someone thought they were just checks, and had no idea they were service agreements, I don’t see how these apply.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing, either. What sort of “check” are you talking about?
Not really. First, there are only so many opportunities to hide “catches” on a document like a check. It’s no great burden to peruse the front and the back of a check, so you’d have a difficult time establishing to a judge or jury’s satisfaction that your overlooked this notice.
More importantly, the above is coupled with the fact that you collected an otherwise unearned payment of $25. When the hot dog cart vendor hands you a dog and you take and eat it, it is no defense to say he didn’t say “You have to pay for this, you know.” Likewise, here, with notice on the check and your receipt of an actual benefit, it will be tough to claim that the contract was not accepted.
I have a related question.
I sign documents with my first and last name. I was signing some legal documents which listed my full name, including middle, and they insisted that I sign using my middle initial. I said that (a) that wouldn’t be my customary “legal” signature, (b) my signature isn’t legible enough to prove whether my middle initial is in there or not, and © it doesn’t matter anyway.
I finally decided it wasn’t worth my time to argue the point and just signed it their way, but I’ve been wondering since then whether I was right.
Yes. You were right. As to both the legal effect of signing without your middle initial and the relative worth in arguing it with someone who has a magic-spells-and-rituals understanding of how the law works.