Signing contracts, names, and symbols...

[ZenBeam]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

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.

It’s not a great burden, but if someone thinks they are cashing a regular check, it’s not unreasonable to not look for small print. I’m not claiming the money wouldn’t have to be repaid, but that the contract wouldn’t be enforceable, since the one party didn’t know there was a contract, and didn’t sign his name.

For Gfactor: As an incitement to use their service, companies will send checks where, when you deposit them, you agree to use their service. They’re checks with an added contract on them.

[Gfactor]

@ZenBeam

For Gfactor: As an incitement to use their service, companies will send checks where, when you deposit them, you agree to use their service. They’re checks with an added contract on them.

The bank should not accept those “checks” because they aren’t real checks. The deposit without signature rule applies to instruments. U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS (2002) | Uniform Commercial Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute Instruments under that chapter of the UCC are “negotiable instruments.” U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS (2002) | Uniform Commercial Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. Negotiable instruments must be unconditional orders or promises. U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS (2002) | Uniform Commercial Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

If for some reason your bank innocently credited your account or gave you value for the "check,"I still think that Kimmy has the right idea. “Whether a contract is formed is judged by the objective conduct of the parties and not their subjective intent.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub\0001\c0991078&invol=1 So, as I said, it’s a bit more complicated than that you failed to read the document you signed making a good defense for you. http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/2778/

[John_W.Kennedy]

It did take about 20 years after my father died before the state of New Jersey would let me take the “Jr” off my driver’s license, and when it comes to home insurance, mortgages, or anything else involving our home, which we bought a couple of weeks before we got married, they usually insist that my wife use her maiden name.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

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.

A wise old lawyer once told me that, to avoid confusion and avert disputes, you should just always endorse checks the same as they’re made out. If the maker used your middle name, sign with your middle name. If he didn’t, don’t.

Signing a contract with a fake name was a minor plot point in a recent episode of Reaper. Even the Devil, legalistic bastard that he is, seemed to think it was an effective dodge by the would-be condemned soul.

[John_W.Kennedy]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Signing a contract with a fake name was a minor plot point in a recent episode of Reaper. Even the Devil, legalistic bastard that he is, seemed to think it was an effective dodge by the would-be condemned soul.

But if the Devil doesn’t have a “magic-spells-and-rituals understanding of how the law works”, who does?

(By the way, in the US, in addition to the “magic-spells-and-rituals understanding”, there’s also the Constitution-is-the-axioms-and-everything-else-is-theorems understanding.)

[jackelope]

Nitpick from the article:

These statutes typically require that certain kinds of contracts – agreements in consideration of marriage; promises by executors and administrators; promises to answer for debts, defaults, or misdeeds of others; agreements not to be performed within a year; and contracts to sell any interest in real property – be documented by a writing signed by the party to be charged.

The statute of frauds also requires that contracts of suretyship (in which one person agrees to assume the debt of another) be in writing.

[Gfactor]

@jackelope

Nitpick from the article:The statute of frauds also requires that contracts of suretyship (in which one person agrees to assume the debt of another) be in writing.

promises to answer for debts, defaults, or misdeeds of others

That’s suretyship.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@jackelope

Nitpick from the article:The statute of frauds also requires that contracts of suretyship (in which one person agrees to assume the debt of another) be in writing.

OMG IRONY!!! The one that was missed was not suretyship as already explained, but sales of goods for $500 or more, which restriction in Illinois is not in the Frauds Act (740 ILCS 80), but the Illinois UCC (810 ILCS 5/2-201(1)).

[Gfactor]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

OMG IRONY!!! The one that was missed was not suretyship as already explained, but sales of goods for $500 or more, which restriction in Illinois is not in the Frauds Act (740 ILCS 80), but the Illinois UCC (810 ILCS 5/2-201(1)).

Right. I did leave out the UCC one. I hadn’t intended to be comprehensive, anyway.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Gfactor

Right. I did leave out the UCC one. I hadn’t intended to be comprehensive, anyway.

Ha ha. MYLEGS!!!

Also: Cha cha is my favorite dance.

[Humble_Servant]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

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.

A Nabokov reference from DJ Tanner’s BFF?? Just who are you, Ms. not-your-real signature Gibbler?

My Dad was a bank employee and often went to court for the bank on uncontested matters. The defendants usually didn’t show up, but one did and told the judge that he shouldn’t be liable for the money the bank lent him because he printed his name on the note instead of writing in cursive. While the judge ultimately smacked the guy down, he made my Dad bring in the bank’s lawyer because that’s what he did if there was any objection at all (my Dad wasn’t a lawyer–I know, I know :eek:).

[md2000]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

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).

What’s wong with “Biggus Dickus”? I have a vewy infwuwential fweind in Wome named Biggus Dickus. He has a wife, you know…

---

IANAL but… Yes, basically the court will require that an agreement was reached. that’s the core of contract alw - tit for tat; both sides get something.

Behaviour as well as or instead of signature may be proof of the understanding of the agreement. If someone signs a contract with a phony name, that could be taken as proof they saw and likely read the agreement. If I sign a joke name to a paper saying “bill of sale” for the car and hand you the keys, the burden of proof would be on me to show how I possibly thought that I was just lending the car.

Executing a contract in bad faith - i.e. signing the wrong name - does not get me out of the terms if I apparently agreed, and went through the motions that showed the other side I agreed. The burden of proof would be on me to show I knew the other side was “in on the joke”, or else I sold just him the car. Selling a Porsche for $1 might win that arguement; selling a used Honda for $3000 won’t.

Remember, contract law is civil court, not criminal; there is no “presumption of innocence” or “beyond reasonable doubt”. The case is judged on the preponderance of evidence, so the guy whose case looks more than 50% likely wins over the 49% guy. That’s how OJ could be criminally innocent (not found beyond reasonable doubt) but still lose the civil case and owe all his worldly possessions to the Goldman family - more than 50% likely hedunnit.

You can argue whatever you want - I didn’t understand, I was forced, I was scared, I thought he was going to pay me… The judges are not stupid. They’ve heard every story a hundred times, just like teachers with late homework. Contract law over the years has been pretty well honed to an exact science.

Signing a joke name to try to get out of the deal or whatever is “bad faith”. The other person asks you to sign something to show you agree, and you blithely sign without telling them you disagree. If you did not intend for that signature to be taken as yours, or you signed something sneaky with intent to welch on the deal later, that’s bad faith. If you signed it “Jesus H Christ” or “screw you” and the other party basically did not read it, assuming it’s your signature - That would be an interesting case! ( A lawyer doing legal documents probably coun’t pull the “I didn’t read it” bit, a clerk in a small store might get away with that…)

The only time the phoney or fake or weird signature might work is if the question was - was that really you the person who signed the document? Try to dream up circumstances where that arguement might or might not win the 50% rule. If it went into your ATM account - well, who else has your PIN? If the witnesses at the signing identify you, you’ll lose…