Can you designate someone to sign a contract for a company with certain restrictions? As I understand it, for companies to sign contracts, some individual must sign their signature or else the contract is void. I have read that non-officers in a company must be given the capacity to sign contracts on behalf of that company. My question is: as the owner of a company, can I give someone else in the company the capacity to sign contracts for that company with certain restrictions. For example, they can only sign a contract if the board authorizes them or if the contract pertains to a certain thing. Additionally, the Board would usually be willing to go what I say in this matter.
Have you ever bought groceries? If you have, I’m pretty sure you never signed a contract nor asked the person on the till if they had the authority to enter a contract on behalf of the company. Notwithstanding, a contract is what you had with the grocery company; one that is legally binding on both you and that company. (Most) contracts don’t need to be signed Or, for that matter, be in writing There are exceptions, most notably around real estate or finance, but the overwhelming majority of contracts don’t need a signature or even to be in writing. Many contracts are in writing even when that isn’t legally necessary for all sorts of good reasons but most B2C and even many B2B contracts are verbal or even simply performed - like you buying groceries. Apparent or ostensible authority An agent of a company (including employees) that reasonably appears to have the authority to bind a company to a particular course of action, including agreeing to a contract, has that authority even if they don’t. For example, when you buy your groceries, you can reasonably assume that the cashier has the authority to sell them to you. Unless you know that someone is exceeding their actual authority or it is unreasonable for you to assume the agent is (for example if the cashier tried to sell you the grocery store), then the company cannot avoid their obligations to you. They can, of course, take action against an agent that exceeded authority but that doesn’t let them off the hook for what that agent did. What authority a company gives its agents is up to it A company can only act through its agents. At the top of the tree are the directors and other officers, they have authority only limited by the law and the company’s rules. However, since outsiders don’t know the company’s rules (unless they have been explicitly told), their apparent authority is only limited by law. The directors and officers can delegate authority to employees and other agents however and with whatever restrictions they wish. Such delegation may be explicit or implicit, for example, it’s implicit in a purchasing officer’s role that they can purchase things. However, an outsider is entitled to presume that an employee who acts like they have the company’s authority to do whatever they are doing, does have it.
If I enter into a contract that a previous contract I entered into says cannot be entered, what happens next? Your question is unclear on whether both contracts are entered by the same parties. Generally speaking, it is valid for parties A and B to enter both contracts unless the formation of the subsequent contract contravenes the rights of another entity who also is a party to the initial contract. If the initial contract only binds A and B, a subsequent contract between A and B is tantamount to mutually agreeing to modify the initial contract. If the initial contract between A and B prohibits entering a contract with C, A's formation of a contract with C constitutes A's breach of the initial contract. The specifics of both contracts and the circumstances would help determining whether the subsequent contract is void and null; whether it is valid at law or in equity for A to have indulged in forming a contract with C (for instance, if B breached the initial contract in a way that frustrates its purpose); or whether compelled performance of the [initial] contract between A and B results in A breaching his contract with C (or in the alternative, whether rescission of the subsequent contract is permissible). If both B and C an "innocent" parties, the court supposedly would look for a solution that preserved their rights to the extent possible, leaving A to carry the cost.
Copyright law is not based on contracts, and does not require agreement. No one may distribute copies of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. For instance, in the US, both Persons A and F can be sued because Title 17, Section 501 of the US Code says: (a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. (b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled ... to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. Copyright infringement isn't an issue of violating terms you agreed to with a private entity. Your duty to not infringe copyright was imposed by your country's legislature, who does not require your personal agreement to do that.
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.
Possibly. Under UCC 3-402, a representative can sign for a party. There are some conditions though. One is that the signature should show unambiguously that the signature is made on behalf of the person identified in the instrument. If the signature is not clear that the signature is made in a representative capacity, the representative is liable. The only thing that a digital signature adds is the possibility that it is impossible to unambiguously show this because of the software. It seems from the internet that Docusign allows this.
canada Not merely because of the length or legalese, and not the entire contract. But there is a line of authority in Canadian law that can lead to exclusion-of-liability clauses being unenforceable, and length is a factor. When there are unusual exclusion clauses, inconsistent with the main purpose of the contract, executed in hasty circumstances, where the contract is long and/or small and the signer's attention is not drawn to the exclusion clauses, courts have been wary to enforce them. Karroll v. Silver Star Mountain Resorts Ltd., 1988 CanLII 3294 (BC SC): [18] ... to allow someone to sign a document where one has reason to believe he is mistaken as to its contents, is not far distant from active misrepresentation. [19] In the usual commercial situation, there is no need for the party presenting the document to bring exclusions of liability or onerous terms to the attention of the signing party, nor need he advise him to read the document. In such situations, it is safe to assume that the party signing the contract intends to be bound by its terms. [20] But situations may arise which suggest that the party does not intend to be bound by a term. In Tilden the hasty, informal way in which the contract was signed, the fact that the clause excluding liability was inconsistent with the overall purpose of the contract, and the absence of any real opportunity to read and understand the document given its length and the amount of small print on its reverse side, led the Court to conclude that the defendant should have known that the plaintiff had no intention of consenting to the onerous exclusion in question. In these special circumstances, there was a duty on Tilden to take reasonable measures to bring the exclusion clause to the attention of Mr. Clendenning. Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning, 1978 CanLII 1446 (Ont. C.A.) said: In modern commercial practice, many standard form printed documents are signed without being read or understood. In many cases the parties seeking to rely on the terms of the contract know or ought to know that the signature of a party to the contract does not represent the true intention of the signer, and that the party signing is unaware of the stringent and onerous provisions which the standard form contains. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the party seeking to rely on such terms should not be able to do so in the absence of first having taken reasonable measures to draw such terms to the attention of the other party, and, in the absence of such reasonable measures, it is not necessary for the party denying knowledge of such terms to prove either fraud, misrepresentation or non est factum. In the case at bar, Tilden Rent-A-Car took no steps to alert Mr. Clendenning to the onerous provisions in the standard form of contract presented by it. The clerk could not help but have known that Mr. Clendenning had not in fact read the contract before signing it. Indeed the form of the contract itself with the important provisions on the reverse side and in very small type would discourage even the most cautious customer from endeavouring to read and understand it. Mr. Clendenning was in fact unaware of the exempting provisions. Under such circumstances, it was not open to Tilden Rent-A-Car to rely on those clauses, and it was not incumbent on Mr. Clendenning to establish fraud, misrepresentation or non est factum. Having paid the premium, he was not liable for any damage to the vehicle while being driven by him. As Lord Denning stated in Neuchatel Asphalte Co. Ltd. v. Barnett, [1957] 1 W.L.R. 356 at p. 360: &quot;We do not allow printed forms to be made a trap for the unwary.&quot;
If two parties have a contract, where one party is required to do X in exchange for the other party doing Y, then the terms specified in that contract would determine what happens. You would have to see exactly what it says, especially if the other party has the option to not give you money. A contract might say "A shall at his option give B $5,000 by date X; if A elects not to make payment, notice must be given 60 days before X". Failing to give timely notice is thus breech of contract. However if the clause only says "A shall at his option give B $5,000 by date X", then there is no requirement for advance notice. And this assumes that there is a contract whereby both parties have some obligation to the other. A gift, on the other hand, carries no obligations on the giving party. There may be some social code to the effect that they should have told you by now, but failing to give advance notice is at most rude and certainly not legally actionable.
You already have a contract(s): you do work and they pay you is pretty much all you need to have a contract. Given that there is already a contract, formalising it in writing does not expose you to any greater risk and usually, clearly defining the terms of a contract reduces risk all around.