False Signature
Discussion
I know people who sign personal things with one signature and at work with a different one, mostly because signing all day long in work gets tedious so they opt for an easier one for work. I'm sure there are lots of people like this probably with even more different signatures of the same name.
I have often wondered for example when taking out a contract you sign the paperwork with a scribble/false signature (not micky mouse), at some point in the future you are not happy and want out of the contract. Is it as easy to just say sorry not my signature.
I have often wondered for example when taking out a contract you sign the paperwork with a scribble/false signature (not micky mouse), at some point in the future you are not happy and want out of the contract. Is it as easy to just say sorry not my signature.
I would think that complying with the terms of the contract would imply acceptance. Eg you take out a cable TV subscription, they install the box, you start watching and paying for it, 6 months later you'd be hard pressed to claim you didn't agree to the contract.
Contract effectivity is often not secured by a signature alone, if buyer makes a payment and the seller starts *whatever* that is usually enough.
Contract effectivity is often not secured by a signature alone, if buyer makes a payment and the seller starts *whatever* that is usually enough.
donkmeister said:
I would think that complying with the terms of the contract would imply acceptance. Eg you take out a cable TV subscription, they install the box, you start watching and paying for it, 6 months later you'd be hard pressed to claim you didn't agree to the contract.
Contract effectivity is often not secured by a signature alone, if buyer makes a payment and the seller starts *whatever* that is usually enough.
Yes often the action taken after shows the contract is in place or even they have you recorded on a phone call setting it up. Some contracts would have none of this if not for a service/goods.Contract effectivity is often not secured by a signature alone, if buyer makes a payment and the seller starts *whatever* that is usually enough.
I am not sure if this guy has since ‘disappeared’ but might be of interest to you:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinanc...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinanc...
Flumpo said:
I am not sure if this guy has since ‘disappeared’ but might be of interest to you:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinanc...
I like that, not sure how its fraud the credit firm had the oppertunity to read before they signed the contract.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinanc...
A contract isn't a piece of paper with a signature on it, it's the intention to form a contract (someone offers and someone accepts) and consideration ( parties spending money, time, effort, on the basis of the terms of that contract).
The actual piece of paper is useful when arguing about terms later on, but it's not necessary for the contract to be formed. In that regard, it doesn't matter if you subsequently dispute your signature on it and therefore the contract itself if both parties have been behaving (spending money, providing services, consuming provided services etc) as if the contract was formed.
If you need a contract that doesn't rely on consideration, then you need a deed. A deed is witnessed and signed, and you can't subsequently claim you didn't sign it because the witness would be consulted.
I'm sure a lawyer will come along and correct my layman's understanding where necessary...
The actual piece of paper is useful when arguing about terms later on, but it's not necessary for the contract to be formed. In that regard, it doesn't matter if you subsequently dispute your signature on it and therefore the contract itself if both parties have been behaving (spending money, providing services, consuming provided services etc) as if the contract was formed.
If you need a contract that doesn't rely on consideration, then you need a deed. A deed is witnessed and signed, and you can't subsequently claim you didn't sign it because the witness would be consulted.
I'm sure a lawyer will come along and correct my layman's understanding where necessary...
hutchst said:
It would take a particular kind of scumbag, in my humble opinion, to sign a contract and then turn round and swear under oath that you didn't. I suppose that's modern Britain for you.
Modern Britain? are there no cases from past decades of people doing this, if they signed it with a different signature to comitt fraud then I don't think they will be bothered. Also swearing on the bible is pointless if not religious.I would think people lying under oath happens every week in courts around the world and has happened for many many years, not that is right.
Logic 101 - FAIL!NotBenny said:
I signed up for a new phone contract on line, had to tick a signature box.
Signing something is somewhat symbolic - it may help detect fraud if a blatantly wrong signature is found, but I think you're putting too much value on likeness your signature has to be to "your signature"...
With a phone contract the situation is wonderfully simple...Signing something is somewhat symbolic - it may help detect fraud if a blatantly wrong signature is found, but I think you're putting too much value on likeness your signature has to be to "your signature"...
If you have the phone you've clearly entered into the contract, unless you're going to argue that the phone shop employees hand them out as freebies.
BMWBen said:
A contract isn't a piece of paper with a signature on it, it's the intention to form a contract (someone offers and someone accepts) and consideration ( parties spending money, time, effort, on the basis of the terms of that contract).
The actual piece of paper is useful when arguing about terms later on, but it's not necessary for the contract to be formed. In that regard, it doesn't matter if you subsequently dispute your signature on it and therefore the contract itself if both parties have been behaving (spending money, providing services, consuming provided services etc) as if the contract was formed.
If you need a contract that doesn't rely on consideration, then you need a deed. A deed is witnessed and signed, and you can't subsequently claim you didn't sign it because the witness would be consulted.
I'm sure a lawyer will come along and correct my layman's understanding where necessary...
IAAL and I think you have it almost spot on The actual piece of paper is useful when arguing about terms later on, but it's not necessary for the contract to be formed. In that regard, it doesn't matter if you subsequently dispute your signature on it and therefore the contract itself if both parties have been behaving (spending money, providing services, consuming provided services etc) as if the contract was formed.
If you need a contract that doesn't rely on consideration, then you need a deed. A deed is witnessed and signed, and you can't subsequently claim you didn't sign it because the witness would be consulted.
I'm sure a lawyer will come along and correct my layman's understanding where necessary...
The bit in bold is the key. This is why you see 'subject to contract' popping up all over the place, to avoid the suggestion that an agreement to sell and as to price is sufficient to bind both parties.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff