3 ms·
I don't agree with that. If the lawyer knows for certain that Zuck did not sign they should just say he did not sign. That will not prevent them from making arg
by hristov 16y ago
I don't agree with that. If the lawyer knows for certain that Zuck did not sign they should just say he did not sign. That will not prevent them from making arguments in the alternative, such as "even if he signed, the contract is invalid on other grounds." While these kind of arguments may seem a little disingenuous to the ordinary person, they are accepted and made in the courthouses all the time.
I think the best argument you can make for the possibility that Zuck did not sign this contract is that he did not sign it, but does not want to be brought to the witness stand for some reason, so he has told his lawyer not to make the validity of his signature an issue of contention but to try to attack the contract on other grounds.
- btilly 16y agoI don't agree with that. If the lawyer knows for certain that Zuck did not sign they should just say he did not sign. That will not prevent them from making arguments in the alternative, such as "even if he signed, the contract is invalid on other grounds." While these kind of arguments may seem a little disingenuous to the ordinary person, they are accepted and made in the courthouses all the time. I'm having trouble seeing what your point of disagreement is. From what we both said, if the lawyer believes or knows that the client did not sign, the lawyer should make that argument. But the lawyer will also make arguments in the alternative, arguing that even if the client did sign, they should still win the case. That looks like agreement, not disagreement.
- joe_the_user 16y agoI'm not a lawyer but from the last time I had to deal with contracts, I recall that contracts with irregular or completely unjustified terms actually can be thrown out by the courts.
- eru 16y agoHappens regularly in Germany for tenancy agreements, even for quite reasonable stipulations.
- joe_the_user 16y agoAs I remember, US residential agreements are quite restricted because the average renter isn't expected to have any legal sophistication. Commercial lease are much less restricted because a commercial leaser is expected to more sophistication. In any case, Rumpelstiltskin's contract probably wouldn't be honored in a court of law.
- gte910h 16y agoUnconscionably is still ground for invalidation here too.
- enjo 16y agoThis is why almost any contract you sign will have a clause stating that if one section of the contract is found to be invalid, that it does not invalidate the whole contract.