contract-law
Should a contract state that signing means you agree to it?
<p>Is it possible for a person to (successfully) argue that if they signed something, just because they wrote their name on the same piece of paper,  it doesn't mean that they actually agreed to it?</p>

<p>For example, in some contracts I see statements like "I agree as follows:" at the top, or "by signing you agree to the above mentioned terms and conditions" at the bottom. Is this necessary? I once had a job offer where they asked me to sign irrelevant of my decision to accept or reject offer. However, the contract still had a check box for whether I would be accepting or refusing it. </p>

<p>Yes, it helps if the contract explicitly states: "the below signatures indicate acceptance of the terms set forth herein."</p>

<p>Or something to that effect. This is called a <strong><em>binding statement</em></strong> or a <strong><em>binding clause</em></strong>. This is useful for exactly the reasons you speculate in your question. Clarity.</p>

<p>The written document is not the contract. It is <em>evidence</em> of the contract. Therefore, the binding statement is evidence of the parties' <strong><em>intent</em></strong>.</p>

<p>Although a binding clause is <strong><em>useful</em></strong>, it is neither <strong><em>necessary</em></strong> nor <strong><em>sufficient</em></strong> to bind the parties.</p>

<p>The parties can still be bound without a binding clause. The statement merely adds additional evidence and clarity in case one party were to claim that s/he never intended to be bound by their signature. Because, let's say, the other party said something similar to what you describe in the OP.</p>

<p>And, finally, other elements must be present in order to bind the parties. Things like a <strong><em>meeting of the minds</em></strong> and <strong><em>consideration</em></strong> are two but not all of those necessary elements.</p>

<p>Contracts don't have to be necessarily in a written form to become enforceable and hence in such case do not need signature at all.</p>

<p>Two obvious reason why to ask for a contract to be in written form are:</p>

<ol>
<li>Both parties can rehearse their responsibilities and rights (opposed to non-written contract where people tend to forget things).</li>
<li>If dispute escalates to court, then written contract is more convincing to judge than a claim of "verbal contract" existence that is hard to prove.</li>
</ol>

<p>So, in theory, you might have a <em>verbal contract</em> that you agree to a <em>written contract (that does not have signature)</em>. See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_by_reference" rel="nofollow">Incorporation by reference</a> for more details.</p>
