What could be meant by a document purporting to be signed &quot;For&quot; a company? A contract indicates that it is signed &quot;For and on Behalf of [ACME Limited].&quot; The notion of being signed &quot;on behalf of&quot; seems to be invoking the notion of S43(1)(b), Companies Act 2006. However, what possible legal provisions or legal doctrines might the word(s) &quot;For and&quot; be trying to invoke, and what other purpose could they possibly serve apart from what is already achieved by &quot;on Behalf of&quot;? In other words, what is the difference between signing &quot;for&quot; a company and signing &quot;on behalf of it,&quot; and what is the difference between something being signed &quot;for and on behalf of,&quot; and something being signed merely &quot;on behalf of,&quot; a given company?
In other words, what is the difference between signing &quot;for&quot; a company and signing &quot;on behalf of it&quot;? Nothing. Companies are famously illiterate - they can't read or write and need someone with fingers to do it for them. In fact, everything that a company does is done through an agent. There is no difference between a document signed &quot;for&quot; a company, &quot;on behalf of&quot; a company, &quot;for and on behalf of&quot; a company, or one that's just signed. Modern usage is far less formal than it used to be and what you are seeing here is a holdover from a time when people used to put rhetorical flourishes on legal documents for no good reason: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=for+and+on+behalf+of&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2019&amp;corpus=26&amp;smoothing=3#
The parenthesized part means that if you are being compelled by law to disclose some confidential information, you must promptly notify the company of that fact. They could they respond by trying to get you excluded as a witness, or to limit your testimony, but you don't have to care what they do once they've been notified that you were subpoenaed. It may well be that every time the opposing side asks you a question, "your" side will object, and the judge will decide whether to sustain or overrule the objection. The only way in which you would defer to the company lawyer is by not answering the question before the question is finished (i.e. give the attorney 2 seconds to voice an objection). You would not have to "bring" the employer's lawyer along to a deposition, but that lawyer would probably be present and would similarly raise objections, if he felt like it. Your duty is simply to tell the company that you are being compelled to testify. In case the police or a detective agency are investigating the matter and they come to interview you, you are not compelled by law to answer (or to hand over documents), therefore you are supposed to decline to answer (and you are not obligated to inform the company that someone asked a question). As for an administrative subpoena, the perhaps tricky part will be knowing whether you are being compelled to testify, or invited to testify. The wording of the paperwork should inform you whether this is compulsory.
Such clauses are called "copyright assignment", "invention assignment", and/or "works for hire" clauses, partly depending on the clause's intent and wording. They're pretty common in employment contracts for software development and some creative positions. Frankly, the clauses don't actually do much, at least in the US -- copyright law already recognizes the concept of works made for hire (which belong to the employer), and claims too far beyond that are often rejected if they aren't obviously related to company business. With that said, your hypothetical programmer's painting is safe unless it depicts, say, the contents of an email from the CEO. :) Even if the clause technically entitles the employer to claim ownership, the employer has no legitimate interest in doing so. Likewise, that app created outside work is safe as long as it is created using no company resources and is unrelated to the employer's business. If the app is obviously related, that's where things get hairy.
It appears that title changes when both the seller and the buyer sign the reverse side of the vehicle registration certificate. While a vehicle registration with the government is prima facie evidence that a vehicle is owned by the person indicated in the register of the transportation department, Section 140(2) of the Finance Act (1992) under which Ireland's current vehicle registration system was established effective January 1, 1993 (ignoring grandfathered cases) states that this is a rebuttable presumption of ownership only. Nothing in the regulations issued pursuant to the Finance Act states otherwise, and there is language in one of the forms reproduced in a schedule to the regulations which seems to state that registration is something that one must do promptly upon a change in ownership, rather than change of ownership being something that only actually happens upon a change in registration. This is a deviation from the common law that was subsequently codified in the law of sales for untitled tangible personal property, in which title transfers upon delivery of the goods, or if it is covered by a document such as a negotiable warehouse receipt, upon deliver of a negotiated (i.e. signed) warehouse receipt. Likewise, the historical rule for transfer of real property before ownership registration was established for it, was &quot;signed, sealed, and delivered&quot; meaning that a deed had to be signed by the seller, notarized, and delivered to the buyer or the buyer's agent, for title to be transferred. Generally speaking, when property is represented by an ownership certificate or is intangible, transfer of the certificate or relevant document, rather than physical possession, governs transfer of title (before real property records were formalized and bureaucratized, one had to deliver constructive possession of real property with &quot;livery of seisen&quot; by handing over a rock or dirt or twig from the real property to the buyer to signify delivery of possession of real property, the modern equivalent of which would have been to hand over keys to a building). But, the Finance Act and the associated regulations and forms seem to make clear that you need to have both parties, rather than merely the seller (under this historical rule and the rule in most U.S. jurisdictions), sign the relevant form to transfer title. The question is, at what point does the car actually become mine? The reason I ask is that my insurance policy covers me to drive a car of the specified registration (not the one I just bought) and any other car not owned by me. So if I own the car the moment I hand over the money, I am suddenly not insured to drive it home! But if I own it when the government dept. process the form (or when the seller posts it), I probably have a day to get in touch with the insurance provider to change the coverage to the new car (e.g. if the sale is outside of business hours) My suspicion is that this issue is addressed not by the time that title transfers itself, but by a clause in a standard form car insurance contract in Ireland. There is probably a &quot;tail&quot; provision that extends the previous owner's insurance coverage until the registration is processed if it is processed within a reasonable time. But, I don't have the full text of an Irish car insurance policy contract at my disposal to review in order to confirm that fact. You could probably read the terms of your current car insurance policy contract, if you have one, and determine the answer, as this is likely to be effectively uniform for all car insurance policies in Ireland. Or, as @chepnor notes in the comments, &quot;if you call your insurance company ahead of time and tell them you will be purchasing the car. They'll tell you how to ensure you are covered.&quot;
"Acknowledged" is fine. There is no "preferable" substitute with which to prefix your signature. As a precaution, never leave too much space between the end of clauses and your signature, lest another clause later on gets slid in without your consent (a public institution is unlikely to incur such misconduct, though). Also, always be sure to ask for a copy of the contract/agreement you sign.
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.
It depends to a large degree on local employment laws. Depending on how the counteroffer was worded, it might have constituted anything from a binding legal contract for employment for some reasonable minimum term, or a totally non-binding suggestion that was worth less than the air breathed while pronouncing it. Some things to consider would include: What are local employment laws like? Do they require that termination be for cause? If so, what are causes for termination? Does termination require any kind of remediation beforehand? Note that in an at-will, right-to-work state in the US, odds are that the employee can be fired for any time and for any reason, supposing the employer hasn't accidentally entered into a contract by extending the counteroffer. What did the counteroffer say? Did it stipulate that the offer was not for a definite term and that the company reserved the right to terminate the employee for any reason, or no reason at all? Odds are any sufficiently serious business in an at- will, right-to-work state would use standard legal language in any offer or counteroffer to ensure that they are on the right side of this, so odds are the counteroffer was accepted with no obligations at all on the company. Does the termination affect eligibility for unemployment benefits? I would say most likely not, as the termination would probably be recorded as being for no reason legally speaking (if they admitted to terminating the employee for seeking other employment, interested government officials could take a dim view of the company's actions). You'd probably have at least some unemployment compensation coming your way. Some professional - not legal - advice. Never accept a counteroffer. Only get another offer in the first place if you are committed to leaving your current employer no matter what. If your company really insists, you should insist on a minimum definite term of employment written into a legal contract which is signed by an executive and notarized. No company will agree to this (unless the term is shorter than you'd want as a full-time W-2 anyway) but if they do, hey, you have some security (if the company agrees to this, have your own lawyer - whom you pay with your own money - review the document). Even then, I would be very, very careful about staying at a company after getting a counteroffer. Don't do it. Ever. Never accept a counteroffer. One comment asks why I recommend never accepting a counteroffer. There are at least two reasons: The reason you are looking for a new job should be that there is something about your current job that isn't completely satisfactory and that you haven't been able to fix. Either you have grown out of the position, don't like the work, feel you're underpaid, don't get along with somebody, etc. If you were unable or unwilling to fix any of these issues without having another job on the table, having another job on the table shouldn't be what makes you willing and able to fix them. Why work somewhere that you'd constantly need to go job hunting to address workplace issues? Unless the company makes firm agreements about how long they're going to keep you around, you have no guarantee that they'll keep you. Presumably, you didn't have one before, and you don't have one at the new job, but the fact that you are currently employed might support the assumption that your employment would be continued at your current employer and the offer might support the assumption the new employer plans to employ you indefinitely. When you put in your notice, it makes the company more aware of the fact that you could leave at any time; while a perfectly rational actor would realize that this doesn't change the situation at all, companies are run by people and people often act irrationally. Perhaps your manager is vindictive, perhaps your manager is scared that you will still leave after accepting the counteroffer. Maybe your manager knows there are layoffs coming but needs you for the busy season. Hiring replacements can be time-consuming and expensive - and employees who are getting offers of employment elsewhere and putting in notice might be seen as risks. I'm not saying that accepting a counteroffer has always turned out badly. Falling coconuts kill 150 people every year. Still, I am not going to add a coconut rider to my insurance policy and I am not going to accept a counteroffer.
If the company makes a contract, and as a result of that contract it owes more money than it has, then the company goes bankrupt and the owners and directors can walk away from it. This covers the owners/directors in cases of ordinary business contracts. However if an employee (including an owner or director) does something sufficiently harmful then under the law of torts they can be personally liable as well as the company. Examples are negligence and fraud; if you build someone's new roof while acting as an employee and the roof leaks then its likely to be the company on the hook for damages. However if you misrepresented your qualifications or acted negligently then you might well be personally liable. This is all very general. Details are going to be specific to your jurisdiction. So the answer is that having a company is certainly better than making every contract in your own name, but its not complete cover. You can probably get insurance if this is a concern, but its likely to be expensive.