Does signing a contract after explaining it was not legally binding count as contract fraud? An individual recently claimed to have run into a situation where he was charged with "fraudulent contract activities" in a situation that my (admittedly quite limited) understanding of contract law says should not have violated any laws. The individual in question was donating sperm as a known sperm donor to a lesbian couple. The couple wanted to sign a contract saying that the resulting child would be legally theirs and he wouldn't file for child support etc. The individual claims he informed the couple that in his state there is already legal precedent that states these sort of contracts are unenforceable as void, but since the couple was insistent on signing the contract anyways he eventually agreed to do so, even while telling them it was not legally binding. He claims he was sued for "fraudulent contract activities" (his exact words). Supposedly because he admitted he knew the contract was meaningless he was now guilty of fraud by signing it. However, he gained no benefit from the contract, as the same scenario would have happened exactly as it is without a contract, and he claims he clearly explained the contract was worthless. I find it odd that he could be charged with anything under such a situation. He makes it sound like this is a criminal charge, as opposed to some sort of civil case, and he says the judge chose to 'charge' him. Again, common law, and contract in particular, has always seemed to apply common sense so I was a little skeptical. Of course the individual making the claim also has a history of questionable truthhoods as well, and is making claims that further his personal agenda, so I'm not quite willing to take his words as 100% true. Would this scenario warrant any kind of potential fraud charges, civil or criminal? The individual in question lives in Oklahoma so probably that's where the contract was signed.
Does signing a contract after explaining it was not legally binding count as contract fraud? No. However, depending on the details of the contract, the circumstances, and the parties' subsequent conduct, the donor's ability to prove he actually disclosed it to the couple would strengthen his position. The prima facie elements of fraud are listed in Key Finance, Inc. v. Koon, 371 P.3d 1133, 1137 (2015): (1) a material misrepresentation; (2) known to be false at the time made; (3) made with specific intent that a party would rely on it; and (4) reliance and resulting damage. The donor's disclaimer to the couple "telling them [the contract] was not legally binding" strikes elements (1) and (2). That preempts the relevance of (3). No matter how bizarre it is that the donor eventually bowed to the couple's pressure, that does not change the fact that elements (1) and (2) are stricken. Your description does not reflect whether or how the couple incurred any losses, but the requirement of the couple's reliance is preempted by virtue of the donor's disclaimer. Furthermore, the donor's "history of questionable truthhoods" can only weaken the couple's position of "reasonable" reliance on any representation the donor makes (in case the couple shared back then your concept of donor's reliability). The donor's questionable assertions "[to] further his personal agenda" seems to be irrelevant in this matter because, as you say, "he gained no benefit from the contract". Also, it is unclear from your description whether or not the donor has been sued/charged at all. The donor's mere allegation that he was sued has no legal effect --such as defamation or malicious prosecution-- unless one adds intricate assumptions into this matter. As for "he says the judge chose to 'charge' him", it is possible that he was charged for something else and he is (whether unintentionally or on purpose) mischaracterizing whatever proceedings in which he was involved. The sole act of signing that contract upon proper disclaimer does not render the donor liable for fraud.
What is the name of the crime and/or tort I have committed? You are guilty of the crime of fraud, the crime of theft of the money and the item (I can't point you to the precise statute). You have breached your contract of sale. You are probably liable for fraud civilly (i.e. you could be sued for fraud). But, if one was really creative, I imagine that one could find more grounds for civil and/or criminal liability, although they would probably be unnecessary since the victims have plenty of remedies to secure all possible relief already. Who gets to keep the object? Under the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, in the United States, the general rule is delivery of possession by the seller (which didn't really happen here to one distinct person), but for unique goods, title passes when the unique good is identified to a contract with a buyer, so first in time to contract, first in right to the car, would probably prevail. But, I don't know what the rule would be in England and Wales. Is it handled differently if the &quot;valuable physical object&quot; is real estate? Land is harder to defraud someone with, because a reasonable person knows that in England and Wales real estate title is (usually, but not always) represented by a certificate of ownership maintained by a public official in the Land Registry, and is easily checked (about 15% of land in England and Wales show in the link is not registered so the possibility for deception is somewhat greater in that context). Also, generally, you don't pay for real property until you simultaneously receive payment in good funds, while brief extensions of credit for a non-perfectly contemporaneous sale transaction are more common in cases involving tangible personal property.
Generally a signature is binding even if you have not read the document you have signed; as far as the law is concerned you should have and it's too bad for you if you didn't. Of course, this presumes the contract is otherwise valid. In the circumstances you describe you should ask to see the document before signing. If that is not possible, then instead of signing you should write "I do not agree" instead and take the printed statement - only 1 in 100 people will actually check that you did sign. If you have signed and do not wish to be bound, you should contact the company immediately in writing and say that and that they can collect whatever goods they have supplied.
In the event of a dispute, the person resolving the matter, probably an arbitrator in the case of a commission dispute between two realtors and either an arbitrator or a judge and jury depending upon what your listing agreement says about that issue, would hear the testimony from both parties and decide. The intent of the parties is supposed to govern in cases of clerical errors, but a signed document has a lot of weight, especially in such a prominent term. It is a little hard from the way the question is posed to determine who is willing to correct the typo and who insists on enforcing the contract containing the typo.
So you entered a contract that was a bad deal. The law says: tough People are legally allowed to make bad deals. The law will hold you to the bad deal you made. If it only worked for good deals, no one would ever use the law because you don’t want to break a good deal. Providing it has all the required elements of a contract, it will be enforceable. Put up with him or pay him out.
In general, the express terms of the lease signed supersede all prior negotiations of the parties, except to the extent that the particular language in question in the lease is ambiguous. This is called the parol evidence rule (which is the law in all U.S. jurisdictions although it has been expressly rejected in Israel). The parol evidence rule expressly makes a written agreement supersede a verbal agreement, rather than making them equally valid. Also, even if both agreements had been written, generally speaking, the last and final version of the agreement will supersede earlier versions of the agreement. The best defense would be along the lines of fraud-in-factum or fraudulent inducement, i.e. that this term was slipped into the final draft in a manner expressly intended to mislead the signing party about what was being signed. I've won one case where this happened (where there was extensive email correspondence between business lawyers regarding the changes that would be made in each draft and there the version signed did not correspond to the last version signed electronically in a very long document on paper and there were other indicia of fraud), but by far the more common outcome is to bind the party signing the document (especially in a commercial context) and to consider failing to carefully read all terms of the final draft to be negligent on the part of the party signing the contract. Arguably, there might also be a malpractice claim against the lawyer for the tenant for missing this change in a material term before the contract was signed.
TL; DR: It is possible you might have a binding, enforceable contract. It depends on the facts. A trial court will determine the facts unless there is a settlement. Hire an attorney. 1. Contracts require certain elements in order to be enforceable. This website defines the elements of a contract to include the following: The requisite elements that must be established to demonstrate the formation of a legally binding contract are (1) offer; (2) acceptance; (3) consideration; (4) mutuality of obligation; (5) competency and capacity; and, in certain circumstances, (6) a written instrument. 2. Emails are not the contract. They are evidence of a contract. The emails themselves would not necessarily constitute a contract. However, they could be offered as evidence to prove there was a contract and what the terms were — thereby establishing a rebuttable presumption of a contract. In order to win a rebuttal, the litigating party would need to establish by a preponderance of evidence that one or more of the elements of a contract did not exist. 3. Contracts do not need to be written to be enforceable. Contracts do not always need to be written (or signed) in order to be enforceable. Oral contracts are just as enforceable in many cases as written agreements. The classic exception to this rule is that many (if not all) states require contracts to transfer real estate be written, not oral agreements. 4. Courts consider the behavior of the parties as evidence of a contract. Another category of evidence courts consider when deciding contract cases is the behavior of the parties. There is a legal theory called estoppel which Google defines as: ...the principle that precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination.
In the case of a smart contract ... it it actually valid? The question is based on the misconception that the terms &quot;smart contract&quot; (technical term) and &quot;contract&quot; (legal term) directly relate or have much in common. They don't. If anything, smart contracts are essentially modern replacement for papers and signatures. But paper contracts have never been contracts themselves either. They are merely evidence of the contracts, and this evidence is often not even necessary for the contracts to be valid: most contracts are not even required to be in writing. So, the story in your example is just the 21st century's analogue of good old paper contract foul play like signature forgery, disappearing ink and so on. Legally it is handled with no difference: investigate what happened, find out who intended what and judge what has to be done. Gavel bangs!