Extra Eagle

I’ve been preaching for a long time that the signature is not the most important thing in a contract. Here is a recent real example:

The (new) legal Writer has been following this story Gratuitous contract not enforceable, even when written in blood

Basically while drunk Mr. Son while drunk signed a contract in blood with Mr. Kim that said:

“Sir, forgive me. Because of my deeds, you have suffered financially. I will repay you to the best of my ability.”

Mr. Kim took Mr. Son to court about this and the court found that this was not a contract due to lack of consideration. Follow “”Gratuitous contract not enforceable, even when written in blood”:http://raymondpward.typepad.com/newlegalwriter/2009/03/gratuitous-contract-not-enforceable-even-when-written-in-blood.html for the full back story.

Consideration is the legal concept that roughly says that a contract has to be an exchange. It can not be one sided. In the above “contract” Mr. Kim didn’t offer anything in exchange. So it is not a contract and completely invalid no matter how cool the signature was.

You can think of consideration as an early an effective consumer protection scheme. To read more about how contracts work and why it really is far more important to worry about them than the actual signature check out the following two articles I wrote:

• Pragmatic Contract Law for Entrepreneurs
• Contracts are Relationships with Strings Attached

Remember though if you sign over your soul to the devil in blood in return for winning the next American Idol that would be Consideration and therefore a valid contract.

Also I would add using Agree2 to draft, negotiate and sign your contracts would be a lot fairer, cleaner and safer than using blood.