3 ms·

If one party edits a legal document before signing it, and then the other party doesn't read it before accepting it, then that is on the receiver. This tactic

by blunte 5y ago

If one party edits a legal document before signing it, and then the other party doesn't read it before accepting it, then that is on the receiver. This tactic is used by lawyers on each other all the time. It's not fraud.

runnerup 5y ago
I'd hesitate to rely on your advice here. Here's a relevant story: https://a16z.com/2014/02/06/why-i-did-not-go-to-jail/ https://a16z.com/2014/02/06/why-i-did-not-go-to-jail/ More specifically to this exact discussion, see California Civil Code 3399: > When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, or a mistake of one party, which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not truly express the intention of the parties, it may be revised on the application of a party aggrieved, so as to express that intention, so far as it can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons, in good faith and for value. This would allow an employer to seek reformation. It's not clear to me as a layperson if this reformation could apply retroactively or not. Or this interpretation of the consequences of a recent case in Virginia: https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/when-negotiating-contract-tryi/ https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/when-negoti... The actual decision: https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2015/10/WhalenRutherford.pdf https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/wp-content/... The facts of this case do not mirror exactly what we're talking about here, so I'm definitely not trying to give legal advice. Maybe this wouldn't apply -- reading through it, it's a bit more egregious than what we're talking about here.
- hnfong 5y ago
  It's pretty eye opening how comments like this gets down voted. Is providing legal information with authoritative sources in a thread like this somehow offensive? (I've wised up personally, never try to do that myself again lol)

by blunte 5y ago

runnerup 5y ago

I'd hesitate to rely on your advice here. Here's a relevant story: https://a16z.com/2014/02/06/why-i-did-not-go-to-jail/ https://a16z.com/2014/02/06/why-i-did-not-go-to-jail/ More specifically to this exact discussion, see California Civil Code 3399: > When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, or a mistake of one party, which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not truly express the intention of the parties, it may be revised on the application of a party aggrieved, so as to express that intention, so far as it can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons, in good faith and for value. This would allow an employer to seek reformation. It's not clear to me as a layperson if this reformation could apply retroactively or not. Or this interpretation of the consequences of a recent case in Virginia: https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/when-negotiating-contract-tryi/ https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/when-negoti... The actual decision: https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2015/10/WhalenRutherford.pdf https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/wp-content/... The facts of this case do not mirror exactly what we're talking about here, so I'm definitely not trying to give legal advice. Maybe this wouldn't apply -- reading through it, it's a bit more egregious than what we're talking about here.

hnfong 5y ago
It's pretty eye opening how comments like this gets down voted. Is providing legal information with authoritative sources in a thread like this somehow offensive? (I've wised up personally, never try to do that myself again lol)