4 ms·

Are these contracts really valid? I thought that a contract needs to be ultra squeaky clean without any typos, crossed out words and so on.

veb 16y ago
Anything is technically a contract when signed by both parties... right?
- eli 16y ago
  Sometimes it doesn't even need to be signed or written down.
- flipbrad 16y ago
  even if you didn't read it, in the UK at least (L'estrange v Graucob, IIRC). Mind you, EU law (and hence, UK law) might strike out some terms as unfair. And public policy is also grounds for certain (extreme) contracts to be outlawed - for slavery, for example.
  - rmc 16y ago
    In some areas "public good" can override things aswell
- philwelch 16y ago
  Illegal contracts are not contracts. For instance, contract murder is murder, but not a legally binding contract.
m0shen 16y ago
Yes, they're valid. What you are essentially doing is creating a counter-offer instead of accepting the contract as-is. The offering party is then supposed to review your modifications and accept (sign). If the employer simply doesn't do anything after the employee has made the modifications and returned the document, then they really don't have a leg to stand on.
eli 16y ago
IANAL, but it's quite common to alter a contract in the margin and have both parties initial it
sophacles 16y ago
This is pointed out in the followup comments: If a contract has been marked up - then it is merely a counteroffer. However, it also means that there is no basis for a lawsuit, as there was never a valid contract.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Contracts are still valid if they have markup on them; both parties just initial the changes, or the changes are dated and initialed.
  - AgentConundrum 16y ago
    Yes, but until both parties initial the changes, a modified contract is still just a counter-offer, right?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I'm sure that's true. I'm just saying, contracts aren't mystically invalidated because they have handwriting on them. The signatures themselves are just evidence of the underlying agreement, which is what's enforceable.
      - sophacles 16y ago
        Yeah, didn't mean to imply that -- just poor wording on my part.
- flipbrad 16y ago
  IANAL, but from what I see, in this case there is a contract, if the two of you started doing business. It might, or might not, be the one you handed that wasn't throw back in your face. if they filed it, still have it, refer to it in deciding how much to pay you, what work you need to be doing for them, etc - those are all very good signs that's the one. or it might be oral, implied, etc. The court would probably recognise all the terms that weren't in dispute (i.e. the ones you didn't black out). These things vary with the court, the judge, the jurisdiction... what is certain (which you said) is that you can't be sued for the term you blacked out; there's little conceivable way you can be held to have agreed to that. what is said above about arbitration clauses seems to me to be wonderful advice. Because the above just isn't the case in front of an arbitrator. They might well decide that the fair decision is that even though you blacked out the line, you are still in the wrong - for misleading the company, breaching a very similar implied term, or else. Cut it out.
boredguy8 16y ago
Yes. A contract doesn't even need to be written. You can have implied contracts that are still binding. For instance, there's no written contract when you get your hair cut, but if you tried to refuse payment, you'd have breached your contract. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=905 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=905 The employer is still free to fire you (employers can almost always fire someone for any non-protected reason) if they discover and don't like the changes. But even the erasure is indication that you didn't accept the offer as they originally formulated it. People REALLY need to remember that the law is (or tries to be) pragmatic. "Magic bullets" rarely/never exist. You couldn't sneak in a clause saying "I get a 100% pay increase annually" -- in this case, they're the party being bound so would need some indication of assent beyond just a paycheck.
- tzs 16y ago
  Just to make sure no one gets the wrong idea, some contracts don't need to be written. Some do. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds for examples where a written contract is necessary.
lmkg 16y ago
(IANAL) The only essential property of a contract is that it is agreed upon by both (all) parties. The purpose of paper, much less well-formated paper, is to provide documentary evidence should a dispute arise. Verbal and even implicit contracts technically have the same legal weight as anything a lawyer writes up and prints out. It's just harder to prove that the agreement took place and what the precise terms were.

veb 16y ago

Anything is technically a contract when signed by both parties... right?

eli 16y ago
Sometimes it doesn't even need to be signed or written down.
flipbrad 16y ago
even if you didn't read it, in the UK at least (L'estrange v Graucob, IIRC). Mind you, EU law (and hence, UK law) might strike out some terms as unfair. And public policy is also grounds for certain (extreme) contracts to be outlawed - for slavery, for example.
- rmc 16y ago
  In some areas "public good" can override things aswell
philwelch 16y ago
Illegal contracts are not contracts. For instance, contract murder is murder, but not a legally binding contract.

m0shen 16y ago

Yes, they're valid. What you are essentially doing is creating a counter-offer instead of accepting the contract as-is. The offering party is then supposed to review your modifications and accept (sign). If the employer simply doesn't do anything after the employee has made the modifications and returned the document, then they really don't have a leg to stand on.

eli 16y ago

IANAL, but it's quite common to alter a contract in the margin and have both parties initial it

sophacles 16y ago

This is pointed out in the followup comments: If a contract has been marked up - then it is merely a counteroffer. However, it also means that there is no basis for a lawsuit, as there was never a valid contract.

tptacek 16y ago
Contracts are still valid if they have markup on them; both parties just initial the changes, or the changes are dated and initialed.
- AgentConundrum 16y ago
  Yes, but until both parties initial the changes, a modified contract is still just a counter-offer, right?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I'm sure that's true. I'm just saying, contracts aren't mystically invalidated because they have handwriting on them. The signatures themselves are just evidence of the underlying agreement, which is what's enforceable.
    - sophacles 16y ago
      Yeah, didn't mean to imply that -- just poor wording on my part.
flipbrad 16y ago
IANAL, but from what I see, in this case there is a contract, if the two of you started doing business. It might, or might not, be the one you handed that wasn't throw back in your face. if they filed it, still have it, refer to it in deciding how much to pay you, what work you need to be doing for them, etc - those are all very good signs that's the one. or it might be oral, implied, etc. The court would probably recognise all the terms that weren't in dispute (i.e. the ones you didn't black out). These things vary with the court, the judge, the jurisdiction... what is certain (which you said) is that you can't be sued for the term you blacked out; there's little conceivable way you can be held to have agreed to that. what is said above about arbitration clauses seems to me to be wonderful advice. Because the above just isn't the case in front of an arbitrator. They might well decide that the fair decision is that even though you blacked out the line, you are still in the wrong - for misleading the company, breaching a very similar implied term, or else. Cut it out.

boredguy8 16y ago

Yes. A contract doesn't even need to be written. You can have implied contracts that are still binding. For instance, there's no written contract when you get your hair cut, but if you tried to refuse payment, you'd have breached your contract. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=905 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=905 The employer is still free to fire you (employers can almost always fire someone for any non-protected reason) if they discover and don't like the changes. But even the erasure is indication that you didn't accept the offer as they originally formulated it. People REALLY need to remember that the law is (or tries to be) pragmatic. "Magic bullets" rarely/never exist. You couldn't sneak in a clause saying "I get a 100% pay increase annually" -- in this case, they're the party being bound so would need some indication of assent beyond just a paycheck.

tzs 16y ago
Just to make sure no one gets the wrong idea, some contracts don't need to be written. Some do. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds for examples where a written contract is necessary.

lmkg 16y ago

(IANAL) The only essential property of a contract is that it is agreed upon by both (all) parties. The purpose of paper, much less well-formated paper, is to provide documentary evidence should a dispute arise. Verbal and even implicit contracts technically have the same legal weight as anything a lawyer writes up and prints out. It's just harder to prove that the agreement took place and what the precise terms were.