If signing a contract with a contractee outside of the U.S., should you tell the contractee to write it using the standards of the U.S.? If signing a contract with a contractee outside of the U.S., should you tell the contractee to write it using the standards of the U.S.? I am wondering if all contracts, especially business contracts, have the same formats and standard wording or they have different standards and formats and you need to hire a lawyer from the country where the third party resides because the formats and standards can only be understood in the context of their own laws, which is different from that of the U.S..
should you tell the third party to sign it using the standards of the U.S.? In most cases signing a contract is not subject to country-specific standards. All that matters is that it can be ascertained from the contract who the parties are as well as and their willful, informed formation of that contract. It is more typical for a contract to specify that it is governed by the laws of country X and/or jurisdiction Y. That places on the counterparty(-ies) the burden of ensuring that they know the legal framework that underlies the contract at issue. Lastly, note that a party entering a contract is &quot;by definition&quot; not a third party. At most, a third party might sign a contract in a witness capacity, not than in the capacity that implicates rights and duties pursuant to that contract.
None The contractual chain is you &lt;-> warranty company &lt;-> (potentially others you don’t know about) &lt;-> service provider. Should something go wrong, you would sue your warranty company who might (it is up to them) then sue the service provider. Notwithstanding, it’s likely the service company owes you a duty of care and would be directly liable to you for a negligence claim.
The following answer is based on general common law jurisdictions; many jurisdictions have statutes that will change some of these. In particular, consumer contracts, real estate contracts and employment contracts are typically heavily regulated and may have additional requirements. What is a contract? A simple definition of a contract [Guest, AG (ed), Chitty on Contracts, Sweet and Maxwell, 27th ed, 1994, p 1] is: A contract is a promise or set of promises that the law will enforce. Such promises must be between different people; you can't contract with yourself. Note, however, that you and a company you own are different people; so you can form a contract with your company. So at least two people must be parties to a contract but there can be more, in fact, as many as you like. So long as the requirements are met by each of the parties they will be legally bound by their promises. Contracts are ubiquitous Most of us engage in contracting many, many times a day. Almost every transaction where something of value passes from one person to another in return for something of value going the other way is part of a contract. Buy a coffee. Use some electricity. Get a haircut. Sell something on Ebay. What elements are required for validity? To form a contract, all parties must have: Intention to create legal relations Agreement Consideration Legal Capacity Genuine Consent Legality of Objects Intention to create legal relations The mere fact of mutual promises does not create a contract. The law requires some evidence (express or implied) by the parties that they intend to make their promises legally binding. Two presumptions, both of which may be overcome by the evidence, have developed to help determine this: an agreement in commerce or business is presumed to be a contract, an agreement of a family, domestic, social or voluntary nature is presumed not to be contract. In addition, a transaction with a public authority carrying out a statutory function is not normally contractual, even if a fee is paid. In contrast, government commercial activities such as buying or selling goods or services (that are not statutory obligations) are contractual. Agreement The parties, having decided they wish to be legally bound, have to agree on what they will be bound to. The most common way this is determined is by the concept of offer and acceptance, however, a global approach can be taken by looking at the acts and conduct of the parties to determine if they have reached an agreement. Offer An offer is a definite undertaking with the intention that it shall become legally binding when the person to whom it is made accepts it. In working out if a communication is an offer or not, the following are considered: An invitation to treat is not an offer. An invitation to treat can include putting goods on display in a shop (but putting them on display in a vending machine is an offer), publishing a catalogue or price list, advertising an auction or putting a "For Sale" sign on your house or car. An offer can be made to a specific person or persons, a class of persons or the whole world. The offer can only be accepted by someone to whom it was made. For example, if I offer to sell my car for $5,000 to Jim then only Jim can accept it, if Tony "accepts" it there is no contract. An offer must be communicated to the person(s) for whom it is intended. Duh. An offer can be revoked before it is accepted. Acceptance Once an offer is made there are rules used to determine when (and if) it has been accepted: Acceptance must be in reliance of the offer; that is, the person "accepting" the offer must know that it exists. For example, if B find's A's lost wallet and returns it out of kindness, not knowing that A has offered a reward, B cannot claim the reward when he learns of it. Acceptance must be complete and unqualified. If there is anything further to be negotiated then a contract has not been formed. Conditional assent is not acceptance. An agreement to buy "subject to bank finance" for example is not a contract. Acceptance must be clear and certain. The exact terms of the contract must be agreed with sufficient certainty, if the terms are indefinite there can be no contract. Note, however, that common usage or past dealings can provide sufficient certainty. Acceptance may be express or implied. That is, you can accept an offer by word or action. Acceptance may be retrospective. Where parties have acted on the basis that a contract will be formed in the future then if and when that contract comes into existence, those acts form part of it. A counter-offer is a rejection of an offer. If you make a counter offer then that kills the original offer; you cannot subsequently accept that offer unless it is re-made. Acceptance must be communicated (unless it is communicated by conduct). Again, duh! The offeror may prescribe the manner of acceptance. If the offer says it can only be accepted by post for example, then an email is not an acceptance. Example 1 B walks into A's convenience store. A has on display a chocolate bar with a price tag of $1; this is an offer to treat. B can now make an offer on said chocolate bar by: Saying, "I will give you $1 for this chocolate bar", Saying, "I will give you 50 cents for this chocolate bar", Saying, "I will give you $2 for this chocolate bar; but you must accept my offer in writing", Saying, "I will massage your left foot for 1 minute for this chocolate bar", Saying, "please give me this chocolate bar for free" (Note: this is not an offer that can lead to acceptance due to absence of consideration, see below), Picking it up and putting it on the counter (this is implicitly saying what No 1. said explicitly). Needless to say this is the most common method. Now that B has made the offer (by whatever method) it is open to A to accept it. Ignoring the silly offers and focusing on 1./6., this is typically done by A saying "$1, please" (explicit) or holding out his hand (implicit and slightly rude). At that point (but not before) B is legally committed, the offer has been accepted; he can't put the chocolate bar back, however, A is unlikely to sue for breach if he does. Consideration A contract must be an exchange of promises. If A says to B "I will give you $100" and B says "Thank you" there is an agreement but no contract; quite possibly there is no intention to create legal relations but B has given no consideration to support A's promise. Consideration is the price and a price must be paid for every promise to form a contract. Some examples of consideration are: A promise for a promise: A promises to work for B in return for B's promise to pay A. C promises to fix D's leaking tap in return for D's promise to fix C's car. A promise for an Act: E promises to give F a car if F gets a certain grade at university. G promises to pay H's debts in return for I withdrawing a suit against H. J promises to shop in K's supermarket in return for K supplying a trolley. The following rules apply to consideration: Consideration is required for a contract to exist Consideration can be "executed" (a promise for an act) or "executory" (a promise for a promise) but cannot be "past". If the act or promise has already happened, it cannot be consideration for a contract. For example, if A promises to pay B for work already done, there is no contract. Consideration need not be adequate; that is, the deal does not have to be "fair". Consideration must be sufficient - this is different from adequacy. Insufficient consideration falls under: performance of a duty imposed by law, performance of a duty imposed by an existing contract, acceptance by a creditor of part payment by a third party, composition with creditors, moral obligation (i.e. you can't do it for love), illusionary or uncertain promises. Consideration must move from the promissee but need not move to the promisor. For example, if A promises to pay B if C will fix A's car, B cannot enforce A's promise because B has offered no consideration for A's promise. Alternatively, if B had promised to organise C to fix the car then that would be good consideration. Legal capacity A contract may not be valid if one or both of the parties is legally incapacitated. At least six classes of persons are (or were) subject to degrees of incapacity (I won't go into details): Minors the mentally ill the intoxicated married women (archaic) corporations capital felons. Genuine consent Consent may not have been given due to: Mistake, however, remedies are restricted, narrow and technical, Misrepresentation Undue influence Duress an Unconscionable contract Legality of Objects You can't make a contract where the law says you can't. Is there anything else? A great deal, however, these are the basics. As previously mentioned, the common law may have been changed in your jurisdiction by statute; either to contracts as a whole or to certain types of contract. In addition, statutes may require some contracts to be in writing and/or witnessed; contracts to do with real estate and employment are a favourite for this. Other than this there is no need for a contract to be in writing, be signed, be witnessed or have any other special mumbo-jumbo. Indeed the vast majority of contracts are verbal with implied terms (or terms read in by statute) and are formed and completed without the parties even realising there was a contract.
Is that legal given that the original deal was as a contract-to-hire basis? No, unless the contractor agrees to an amendment/contract that incorporates a non-compete clause. A party is not allowed to unilaterally modify against a counterparty's will an existing, binding contract. What you describe seemingly falls short of being a cognizable amendment to the contract. What would someone do if they were offered employment and then the contracting agency threatened to sue the person? The person might want to educate the intermediary/agency about the invalidity of unilateral amendments that are not agreed upon. The intermediary's awareness of this tenet of contract law --or its awareness that the threatened person is knowledgeable of that principle-- might dissuade the intermediary from litigating its unviable claim. Regardless, given the prospect of litigation, the person needs to make sure that henceforth all his communications with the intermediary are in writing. The person might also want to inquire of the employer whether its contract with the intermediary contains a clause entitling the employer to hire the intermediary's contractors. If it does, the intermediary's threats to the person sound in intermediary's breach of that contract. A claim of tortious interference with relation is unavailable unless the intermediary's misconduct actually disrupts the relation or prospect between the employer and the person, but it is clear that the intermediary's acts are in the direction of frustrating that relation. Even if there is no such clause between the employer and the intermediary, the person might want to update the employer on how the intermediary is trying to disrupt their tacitly agreed contract-to-hire basis.
Bonded labor is illegal in India, but enforcement is lax. Read Right against exploitation in Fundamental rights in India. The right against exploitation, given in Articles 23 and 24, provides for two provisions, namely the abolition of trafficking in human beings and Begar (forced labour)... As per law, they cannot make the contract binding if it relates to bonding of the laborer. But a general contract may stand in court if they have made you sign the contract and paid the duty to government for the contract. This contract will be mild form of Bonds/begar-contracts. As per the requirements of the contract, usually they will ask you to give them your original documents and degree certificate. Do not do that. That will give them control, and it's illegal. From personal experience, such companies are phonies and they want to exploit you. Visa thing is a scare. As per they wont give me Experience letter and Releasing letter; they might do that, and so you will not be able to show experience. You can file a lawsuit against them. (But you know it's a waste of time in Indian courts) As per first three things you mentioned: It is written on my company's letter head. It doesn't contain any stamp paper. It doesn't contain any company seal. It's not a contract. Do not provide them your actual signatures. Make a strange signature so that you can later argue that it's not your signature. But think about the consequences: You are going to that (probably shady) company, do you think they will hold any of their promises later, at all. Think: Will the company stay in business until your bond is over? Then how will you get an Experience certificate? That ends the answer. A few suggestions I'd suggest finding a different job. I'd suggest talking to a lawyer. It's cheaper than your life being screwed up. I'd suggest talking to your family about it. Nothing written here constitutes legal advice. Talk to a lawyer to get a legal opinion on the matter.
None because the principle is Freedom to contract There is a general right of any being (natural like a person or even a company) to contract with anyone. Buying someone's service is a contract. A contract forms when: They offer something You offer something Both sides agree on it. (meeting of the minds) It is totally legal for a company to make wears a mask in our place of business a part of either being admitted onto the property or agreeing to contract with you. Noncompliance means as a result that they don't agree to serve you and don't offer to you. In fact, they explicitly reject to contract with you unless you wear a mask, which is their right unless there is a law that would specifically make that reason illegal. There are laws that reduce the freedom of contract, such as the civil right act (protected classes, such as religion, race, sex and more), the Americans with disabilities act (demanding reasonable accommodation), and labor laws (outlawing labor practices or limiting the amount of work or minimum payment) as well as anti-discrimination laws (establishing further classes). However note, that laws need to be written in such a way that they don't discriminate against the company either! One case where freedom to contract was attacked using an anti-discrimination law was Masterpiece Cakeshop - which was decided on first amendment grounds based on the rights of the owner: the law can't force someone to make a product he would not support the message of. Currently, there might only be some ordinance that bans mask policies in Texas, but it is dubious if that might be even an enforceable order from the Texas governor - Especially since OSHA just made adjustments to standards and mandates on the federal level - which include adjustments to respiratory protection fields.
You signed the contract It does not have to be “shown” to you, it just has to be available. You say it was “on the back side”; providing you had the opportunity to turn the paper over, it was available to you and it doesn’t matter that you didn’t see it or read it - that’s your problem. If they deliberately disguised the fact that the contract had two sides or actively prevented you from looking at the back, there might be a way out. But, as stated, it seems you just didn’t look.
The Facebook forum doesn't prevent a contract from being formed. But, for a contract to be formed there must be an affirmative agreement, not silence (at least in cases that aren't between merchants). If they later decide to work together without reaching an agreement on the details, the draft contact could be considered, but the Facebook forum for its delivery and that fact that it wasn't expressly assented to might reduce its weight as part of the evidence in an attempt to determine what the terms of their oral or implied agreement to work together involved. It would be very unusual for a broker not to get a signed agreement in writing to pay his fees, although an oral or unsigned agreement to pay a broker is not necessarily barred by a statute of frauds. A finder of fact would be quite skeptical of a broker's claim to have an agreement in those circumstances and often the professional regulatory provisions related to brokerages would require that fee agreement must be signed and in writing even if contract law does not require that this be done.