united-states signature acknowledgement statement binding
If you sign a signature pad, without seeing what it&#39;s for, is it binding?
<p>You sign something on a signature pad, and only after you've signed it, receive the printed statement with the full statement which you've supposedly acknowledged prior to signing, but have never actually been shown prior to being asked to "please sign here", only having been provided with an incomplete explanation of what the signature is for...</p>

<p>Would a signature in such circumstances be binding?  If you've never seen or heard the full statement beneath which your preceding one-time signature is immediately placed, and not even explicitly given any extra time to examine the statement afterwards, either?</p>

<p>Generally a signature is binding even if you have not read the document you have signed; as far as the law is concerned you should have and it's too bad for you if you didn't. Of course, this presumes the contract is otherwise valid.</p>

<p>In the circumstances you describe you should ask to see the document before signing. If that is not possible, then instead of signing you should write "I do not agree" instead and take the printed statement - only 1 in 100 people will actually check that you did sign.</p>

<p>If you have signed and do not wish to be bound, you should contact the company immediately in writing and say that and that they can collect whatever goods they have supplied.</p>

<p>I disagree with Dale M's answer.</p>

<h1>Short Answer</h1>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Maybe.</strong></p>
  
  <p>The contract might or might not be enforceable depending on the 
  evidence produced by the parties.</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Explanation</h2>

<h3>Meeting of the minds</h3>

<p>Contracts must meet specific requirements in order to be enforceable. Being "signed" is not one of those requirements. But having a "<strong>meeting of the minds</strong>" is.</p>

<p>Just like any civil case, the standard for winning is a <strong>preponderance of the evidence</strong> — meaning the winner will be the one who provides more evidence supporting their position.</p>

<h3>Rebuttable presumption</h3>

<p>Your problem is that your signature gives the other party evidence to support their claim that you agreed to the terms of the document and, therefore, the "meeting of the minds" requirement was met. In other words, the evidence of your signature provides a rebuttable presumption of a contract. You can rebut that presumption with evidence of your own. But you will have to prove your case by producing evidence.</p>

<p>Your evidence will need to be more than just a contrary assertion (i.e., the "I didn't read it" defense). As your simple assertion can be cancelled out with an equal and opposite assertion by the other side. And the other side would then win the preponderance battle based on the signature. Your new evidence needs to <strong>outweigh</strong> the evidence of your signature.</p>

<h3>Non est factum</h3>

<p>You might also have the legal argument of <strong><em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_est_factum" rel="nofollow">Non est factum</a></em></strong> (it's not my deed).</p>

<h3>Hire a lawyer</h3>

<p>You really need to have an attorney who specializes in contract law analyze your case and advise you.</p>
