contract-law
What is the purpose of signing some contracts?
<p>I understand that a contract doesn't need to be signed to be legally binding. So why then are so many signed? Is it so that latter in a dispute, if a person claims they never agreed to the contract, their signature could be used as evidence that they did? Are there any other reasons?</p>

<p>On the other hand, what evidences of affirmation make a contract legally binding when not signed? To what extent to they substitute for a signature?</p>

<p>Generally in the U.S., states have laws that require some contracts to be signed by a party in order to enforce the contract against the party. These requirements are generally set out in a law commonly known as the Statute of Frauds. <em>See</em> the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia article</a>. Although the exact details will vary from state to state, the following types of contracts generally would be unenforceable without a signature: contracts in consideration of marriage (e.g., prenuptials, postnuptials); contracts that cannot be performed within a year; real estate contracts; contracts for goods above a particular threshold, such as $500; and surety contracts.</p>

<p>Even if a contract does not require a signature, it is generally wise to do in order to prove the parties agreed on the terms of the contract. And if the contract is being submitted into evidence at trial, a notarized signature could eliminate claims against its authenticity. <em>See, e.g.</em>, Federal Rules of Evidence <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 902</a>.</p>

<p>If the contract is not signed (or even not in writing), generally a witness would have to testify that the parties agreed to the contract. This of course can devolve into a he-said, she-said argument and the judge or jury would have to decide who is right.</p>
