Is this a legal contract?

[Phil Heo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CT

I contracted with a company to provide security monitoring.
This company then sold the contract to a third company.
When the third company sent me a copy of the contract I noticed a place where I was originally supposed to have signed my initials.
On my copy of the contract this space is blank. On the contract copy I was sent it seems that someone updated this section of the contract and then wrote in my initials.

Would this be a forgery that would negate the entire contract?
Or would it effect only the section of the contract to which the signature applies?

 

[justalayman]

Is your copy of the contract a copy (as in there were 2 copies and you retained one) or a copy (as in Xerox copy)?


Often times the party not retaining the "official" contract is given a copy (as in the one of 2 copies produced) where it is not unusual for it to not even be signed. Unless you are certain you did not initial the true contract, it could be as simple as your copy was not initialed while the "official" copy was.


was the verbiage in that section of the contract actually altered or was there something inserted such as in filling in a blank line with your name or an amount or anything of the sort?

 

[Phil Heo]

It was one of those contracts with multiple sheets where you fill out the top sheet and the impression transfers to the other sheets. Then one person gets the top sheet and the other person (me) gets the underlying sheet.
The information filled out does not hurt me in any way, it's just the total monthly payment and is in the amount that I had verbally agreed to.

 

[justalayman]

I'm at a loss.

In other words, it is a written contract that reflects the terms you had actually agreed to?


Not sure what you are after here if that is the case. For a contract that needs to specify the terms, it kind of has to include the terms.


If the terms were not documented, why would you sign such a contract?

 

[Phil Heo]

I'm at a loss.

In other words, it is a written contract that reflects the terms you had actually agreed to?


Not sure what you are after here if that is the case. For a contract that needs to specify the terms, it kind of has to include the terms.


If the terms were not documented, why would you sign such a contract?

Because they are already spelled out in another part of the contract. The added information is inconsequential.
You are correct, my problem is not with the terms, it is with the legality of signing my initials without my knowledge.

 

[justalayman]

without reading it (and no, do not post it), it is difficult to say with certainty but more than likely the claimed alteration is immaterial and has no effect on the contract. Since the terms recorded are merely repetition of the terms stated elsewhere, there is no actual harm. You do admit to signing the original contract with those terms so there is no benefit, even if the section you are asking about could be invalidated.

 

[Phil Heo]

without reading it (and no, do not post it), it is difficult to say with certainty but more than likely the claimed alteration is immaterial and has no effect on the contract. Since the terms recorded are merely repetition of the terms stated elsewhere, there is no actual harm. You do admit to signing the original contract with those terms so there is no benefit, even if the section you are asking about could be invalidated.

Thank You for taking the time to explain that to me.