My question is: When one of the parties to a contract is a corporation, must an officer or agent of the corporation actually subscribe his or her signature to the document? More specifically, if a duly authorized agent or officer of a corporation merely stamped the written contract with a symbol of some sort (such as a representation of the corporate logo), and no actual signature of any real person was attached, would the contract be valid and enforceable? I need to know this before I pay these folks what they say I owe under a contract I now doubt is legitimate... Thanks. I'll appreciate any guidance.

ScottGem

Depends on who has possession of the seal. If this is a corporate seal used to identify and represent the corporation. And its kept secure, then I would suspect that its a valid indication of completion.

I would also say that there are a number of other issues to determine whether the contract was enforceable. For example, whether the other party adhered to the terms of the contract on their part.

excon

Hello Gary:

It’s an interesting question, and I think the previous experts nailed it. IF the only reason you have to challenge the validity of the contract, IS the signature (or lack thereof), then I think your challenge will fail.

However, I think there is more to the story.

Why don’t you know what you owe? What was the contract for? Did you sign it in your home? How long ago did you sign? Why do you doubt it is legitimate? Did they perform EVERYTHING they said they would? Did you? Do you know specifically WHAT performance was expected by each party? Do you have a copy of the contract?

Fill in some of the blanks. You may have more grounds than you think you do.

excon

GaryArt

Thank all of you for your answers. If this will help anyone formulate a more definitive answer, here's some additional facts: The contract was a loan. The maker of the loan did all that they were required to do under the terms of the contract (i.e., gave me the money). The contract was not executed on their part with any type of corporate seal, but rather, the standard agreement used by them comes pre-printed, including, where the signature or seal of the corporation should be, a representaion of the corporation's dba name in a computer "handwriting" font. The closest analogy I can draw would be to a document purportedly executed by General Motors with a computer-drawn font intended to look like human handwriting saying the word "Chevrolet". My objection to payment stems from a completely unrelated issue - alas one I feel morally correct, but legally insufficient. Thus, I am looking for an alternative to hang my hat on. Again, I'll be grateful for any responses. Thanks.

ScottGem

In its simplest terms the contract says, we provide you with money, you agree to repay it under x terms. They provided you with the money, now you have to pay. All they need is to produce a cancelled check for the funds cashed by you and any court will agree with them. It matters not how the contract was signed in this case. Unless you can show a breach of some other terms in the contract you have to pay.

Fr_Chuck

Yes every without any written contract you still have a legal contract. You asked or requested a loan, they made an offer for the loan, and you accepted that offer and paid you the loan and in return they paid you money. So there was an offer, an acceptance and there was an exchange of something of value.

As part of my duties as Bishop I have a "seal" of my office, papers I sign have this seal put on it, This seal which only I have is my signuture for all purpose on all of my official church papers.

But computer printed names are used all the time, payroll checks is the biggest use of these and before that they put a stamp name on the check

GaryArt

Thanks everybody... I guess I'll pay them on Monday.

Fr_Chuck

Well of course you said there were other issues or reasons that you did not want to pay, with every contract there are various clauses, if this is a large contract, you may want to have an attorney review it