5 ms·

I don't think they are mostly symbolic when they constitute a legally binding contract

by chipgap98 11y ago

wvenable 11y ago
They don't constitute a legally binding contract. You and I could have a conversation on the street and form a legally binding contract. Signatures are just used a simple form of verification of a contract.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  This depends upon which country the street is in.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    Which countries is that not true in?
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      In England I understand that a verbal contract is not worth much. However, in Scotland (very different legal tradition) a verbal contract can be totally and completely binding. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Don't sue someone/risk getting sued because of something I said!
      - throwaway049 11y ago
        A verbal contract is binding in England but, as anywhere else, if you need to go to court to enforce that it's going to be harder to prove compared to a written contract with witnesses.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        I stand partially corrected. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/protection-for-the-consumer/consumer-contracts/consumer-contracts-must-the-contract-be-in-writing/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/protection-for-th... So you are right in many cases. But not all. The other example I was thinking of is regarding a house purchase. In England an offer to buy a house is not binding until contracts have been exchanged and a deposit paid and even then the deposit (usually 10%) is what your bound to. In Scotland however merely saying that you will buy someone else's house can supposedly bind you to the purchase. IANAL
        SEMW 11y ago
        > The other example I was thinking of is regarding a house purchase. Contracts for the sale of land are an explicit statutory exception to the general rule: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2

5 ms·

I don't think they are mostly symbolic when they constitute a legally binding contract

by chipgap98 11y ago

I don't think they are mostly symbolic when they constitute a legally binding contract

wvenable 11y ago
They don't constitute a legally binding contract. You and I could have a conversation on the street and form a legally binding contract. Signatures are just used a simple form of verification of a contract.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  This depends upon which country the street is in.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    Which countries is that not true in?
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      In England I understand that a verbal contract is not worth much. However, in Scotland (very different legal tradition) a verbal contract can be totally and completely binding. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Don't sue someone/risk getting sued because of something I said!
      - throwaway049 11y ago
        A verbal contract is binding in England but, as anywhere else, if you need to go to court to enforce that it's going to be harder to prove compared to a written contract with witnesses.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        I stand partially corrected. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/protection-for-the-consumer/consumer-contracts/consumer-contracts-must-the-contract-be-in-writing/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/protection-for-th... So you are right in many cases. But not all. The other example I was thinking of is regarding a house purchase. In England an offer to buy a house is not binding until contracts have been exchanged and a deposit paid and even then the deposit (usually 10%) is what your bound to. In Scotland however merely saying that you will buy someone else's house can supposedly bind you to the purchase. IANAL
        SEMW 11y ago
        > The other example I was thinking of is regarding a house purchase. Contracts for the sale of land are an explicit statutory exception to the general rule: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2