unsigned contract is binding?

[quincy]

Signatures are not necessarily required for a legal and binding contract. Oral agreements, for example, do not have signatures.

 

[squadrito]

Who presented the contract to whom?

If there is a mutual agreement as to terms, there does not have to be any signatures at all.

if we are arbitrating , there is no agreement employer presented to employee

 

[Taxing Matters]

What is the name of your state?tx
CONTRACT WITH NO SIGNATURE 1PARTY, NO DATE, NO WITNES , NO NOTARIZATION HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN ARBITRATION, IS IT BINDING?

Let's start with some basics. Most contracts are not required to be in writing and signed to be enforceable. Certainly signed written contracts are helpful in proving what the terms of the deal were should the matter go to court, but for most contracts so long as the basic elements of a contract can be established — offer, acceptance, and consideration — the contract will be enforced. Now, where there is a written document signed by one party and not the other the person resisting the contract can argue the lack of the signature indicates that there was no acceptance of the offer and thus no contract, but whether that is successful depends on what other evidence is admitted concerning whether the parties did, in fact, reach a deal.

With that out of the way, answering a couple of questions will help you get some better responses. What was the supposed contract about? Was it to purchase land? A contract to buy goods? A contract for personal services? Or something else? And how much money is at issue here? Did either side pay or perform part of the deal that was proposed in that contract? And if there was no deal, why is this matter going to arbitration in the first place?

 

[Taxing Matters]

if we are arbitrating , there is no agreement employer presented to employee

Ok, that answers one of my questions — this would be some employment related contract. Those are not among the types of contracts that must be in writing to be enforceable. So if the two parties reached a verbal agreement, that agreement would generally be enforceable. The issue in that case would be whether the party seeking to enforce the contract can prove there was a deal and what the terms of that deal were.

 

[squadrito]

Let's start with some basics. Most contracts are not required to be in writing and signed to be enforceable. Certainly signed written contracts are helpful in proving what the terms of the deal were should the matter go to court, but for most contracts so long as the basic elements of a contract can be established — offer, acceptance, and consideration — the contract will be enforced. Now, where there is a written document signed by one party and not the other the person resisting the contract can argue the lack of the signature indicates that there was no acceptance of the offer and thus no contract, but whether that is successful depends on what other evidence is admitted concerning whether the parties did, in fact, reach a deal.

With that out of the way, answering a couple of questions will help you get some better responses. What was the supposed contract about? Was it to purchase land? A contract to buy goods? A contract for personal services? Or something else? And how much money is at issue here? Did either side pay or perform part of the deal that was proposed in that contract? And if there was no deal, why is this matter going to arbitration in the first place?

the unsigned contract is presented as evidence supporting the employers claim of alleged employees misconduct.

 

[Just Blue]

the unsigned contract is presented as evidence supporting the employers claim of alleged employees misconduct.

As was asked already, several times, please post what your issue is with detail.

 

[Taxing Matters]

the unsigned contract is presented as evidence supporting the employers claim of alleged employees misconduct.

Ok, so why is the alleged misconduct an issue? Is the employer claiming the employee breached a contract that had standards of conduct in it that the employee had to follow? Or is the employer simply using the document to show that the employee was put on notice of what actions constitute misconduct? If this is not a breach of contract dispute, why is this going to arbitration? Is it a union grievance situation? Or something else?

 

[quincy]

the unsigned contract is presented as evidence supporting the employers claim of alleged employees misconduct.

Okay. So who are you in all of this?

It is harder to show an agreement was reached if not in writing or, if in writing, not signed by both parties. However, if the employer provided a document for the employee to sign and the employee signed, the employer’s signature is not necessary.

 

[squadrito]

Ok, that answers one of my questions — this would be some employment related contract. Those are not among the types of contracts that must be in writing to be enforceable. So if the two parties reached a verbal agreement, that agreement would generally be enforceable. The issue in that case would be whether the party seeking to enforce the contract can prove there was a deal and what the terms of that deal were.

however, if they propose a written agreement , implicitly wouldn't they override any verbal agreements?

 

[squadrito]

Okay. So who are you in all of this?

It is harder to show an agreement was reached if not in writing or, if in writing, not signed by both parties. However, if the employer provided a document for the employee to sign and the employee signed, the employer’s signature is not necessary.

the employee , following this logic then the contract provides certain duties and protections for both parties, the employer can not use the contract to protect themselves and then argue against protections for the employee , wright?

 

[quincy]

however, if they propose a written agreement , implicitly wouldn't they override any verbal agreements?

Written agreements can be amended by oral agreement but the oral agreement can always be challenged.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

It is like pulling teeth from a bird.

 

[quincy]

the employee , following this logic then the contract provides certain duties and protections for both parties, the employer can not use the contract to protect themselves and then argue against protections for the employee , wright?

Either party to an agreement can argue over the terms of the agreement, whether the agreement is written or oral. The parties could have a different idea as to what exactly was agreed upon.

 

[Just Blue]

the employee , following this logic then the contract provides certain duties and protections for both parties, the employer can not use the contract to protect themselves and then argue against protections for the employee , wright?

Sooo....You are just going to ignore the requests to provide some detail background and ignore the questions asked?

 

[squadrito]

It is like pulling teeth from a bird.

that is why is in arbitration, in general terms in the insurance world , oral/ verbal dont hold any weight. in cases cases where dispute arises from verbals , the black letter law is rule.