What is a signature on a contract?

ScouseMouse

Just curious about this one.

If someone signs a contract with a "squiggle", instead of their normal signature, is this valid.

Say I have a defined regular signature, which clearly reads as my name, superscouse, but on a document, I put a "squiggle", which looks nothing like my signature, or even sign it Patrick Murphy, is the document valid?

Thanks all.

source

That's a good question actually, I don't know the exact legal answer, but I would presume that if someone could somehow prove that it was you that signed it. Then yes the document would be valid (CCTV, witness, handwriting expert or other such thing). Other than that I would suspect that it would be possible to deny you signed it.

Which brings me onto a question. What kind of document would you purposely decide not to use your regular signature on and then try to deny it was you who signed it. Remember most legal documents require a witnesses signature, so they can say it was indeed you who signed it.

234

You don't necessarialy need to sign a contract to be bound by it. All you need to do is accept it; it is the acceptance that is the essential step. So your squiggle could signify that you are accepting the contract just as much as your real signature. If you breach the contract and you get sued for damages or specific performance then you will have to argue that you did not accept the contract; and unless you can prove that you were not even in the room then a judge will say that putting a squiggle on the dotted line is acceptance, I mean what else could it be? These questions always turn on the presumed intentions of the parties. Objectively viewed, putting a mark on the dotted line only conveys one intention- to be bound by the contract.

paky

superscouse wrote: »

Just curious about this one.

If someone signs a contract with a "squiggle", instead of their normal signature, is this valid.

Say I have a defined regular signature, which clearly reads as my name, superscouse, but on a document, I put a "squiggle", which looks nothing like my signature, or even sign it Patrick Murphy, is the document valid?

Thanks all.

its your intentions that bind you to the contract. you can sign it with an x if u like.

why do you ask?

Reloc8

superscouse wrote: »

Just curious about this one.

If someone signs a contract with a "squiggle", instead of their normal signature, is this valid.

Say I have a defined regular signature, which clearly reads as my name, superscouse, but on a document, I put a "squiggle", which looks nothing like my signature, or even sign it Patrick Murphy, is the document valid?

Thanks all.

Fully.

Our man in Havana

Most traffic wardens only use a squiggle on tickets for security reasons.

ScouseMouse

I was vague as I didnt want to fall foul of any forum rules about seeking legal advice. I genuinely am interested in this and am sorry if this looks stupid.

In the past, I signed in deliveries for a business. Occasionally I saw dockets signed H Oaks (hoax) and always wondered if they were binding or not. (They were always honoured)

And What if a rep suddenly asked me to sign something for a display stand, which has been in situ for a couple of years. I could remark that it looks like a contract and I would need to read it first. I could have been told it was just to keep track of where free stands are located for asset tracking purposes. So if a random squiggle was place on the dotted line, and in time to come, someone says hang on, you signed a binding contract, etc etc, then did you actually sign it?

Thanks for the replies, I always wondered about it.

Victor

superscouse wrote: »

And What if a rep suddenly asked me to sign something for a display stand, which has been in situ for a couple of years. I could remark that it looks like a contract and I would need to read it first. I could have been told it was just to keep track of where free stands are located for asset tracking purposes. So if a random squiggle was place on the dotted line, and in time to come, someone says hang on, you signed a binding contract, etc etc, then did you actually sign it?

That launderette case where the bit about buttons was clarified by the clerk and the case where the law clerk though he was witnessing a document (which he wasn't allowed read), but was actually signing a deed promising to pay money.

littlemac1980

There is the contractual defence of 'Non est factum', which probably arises where you sign something under circumstances where you were misled as to the nature of what you were signing.

Off the top of my head, I think it dislodges the presumption that a signature evidences an intention to contract (an essential requirement of a valid contract).