Immutable contracts - Agencies that will not allow modifications

[TheFaQQer]

Changes like that probably won't work in my opinion.

If someone gives you a printed and signed contract and you modify it, sign it and return it then they would have to counter sign your changes for it to be valid. If they just looked at your signature and filed it away then you have no way of proving that they accepted your changes.

However, if you receive an unsigned contact you could take this an an invitation to negotiate. You could modify, sign and return the contract for them to review and accept. If they subsequently sign it then it could be seen as a valid variation accepted by both parties.

I disagree - I don't think it matters whether the contract was signed or not when you receive it. I would think that was the ultimate ruling in Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd, when there is a battle of two forms.

Applying this guide, it will be found that in most cases when there is a “battle of forms,” there is a contract as soon as the last of the forms is sent and received without objection being taken to it.

Denning went on to say

In some cases the battle is won by the man who fires the last shot. He is the man who puts forward the latest terms and conditions: and, if they are not objected to by the other party, he may be taken to have agreed to them.

which would imply that if there is no objection to the last set of terms, then that's what is important.

[northernladuk]

I disagree - I don't think it matters whether the contract was signed or not when you receive it. I would think that was the ultimate ruling in Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd, when there is a battle of two forms.



Denning went on to say

which would imply that if there is no objection to the last set of terms, then that's what is important.

Interesting stuff. I am surprised by this. By receiving the form signed you have the original persons agreement, by changing it you have failed to get concrete agreement.

Thing is though to try to claim against a contract that has been accepted in a way that the original person not being advised of changes and has not acknowledge those changes makes everything incredibly complicated and expensive. If there is a breach you point out to the agent you changed it and signed it and sent it back it is his fault for not checking it, he counters with the changes being invalid, you are faced with a double whammy of having not only having to take the agent to court to prove the initial breach but knowing that the battle will take twice as long with this ambiguity.... so in the end a strong argument that you 'might' get away with this kind of devious changes but it isn't in your favour to do so should you ever need to fall back on the contract? Hardly the basis for contractual agreement by introducing this problem?

The key phrase in Dennings comment however is 'In some cases.......

[SueEllen]

I've found actually using a real solicitor helps get agencies who write their own rubbish contracts change them.

If you ask them to change it yourself they come out with the "No one else asked for this change" bulltulip but when they realised they are actually dealing with a qualified and experienced solicitor they back track.

In most cases the agent will phone your solicitor to confirm you aren't taking the piss and actually using one.

[NotAllThere]

C....A lot of contracts that I see have a clause saying they don't permit handwritten modifications to the printed document and and any modifications would require that the contract was amended and re-printed.

Covered by sneakily scanning and effectively photoshopping the original document.

It's probably illegal though.

It was a long time ago I made the handwritten changes. I vaguely recall telling the agent in the covering letter (this was before email) that I'd made some amendments. Then the ball was definitely in his court.

[TheFaQQer]

Interesting stuff. I am surprised by this. By receiving the form signed you have the original persons agreement, by changing it you have failed to get concrete agreement.

Thing is though to try to claim against a contract that has been accepted in a way that the original person not being advised of changes and has not acknowledge those changes makes everything incredibly complicated and expensive. If there is a breach you point out to the agent you changed it and signed it and sent it back it is his fault for not checking it, he counters with the changes being invalid, you are faced with a double whammy of having not only having to take the agent to court to prove the initial breach but knowing that the battle will take twice as long with this ambiguity.... so in the end a strong argument that you 'might' get away with this kind of devious changes but it isn't in your favour to do so should you ever need to fall back on the contract? Hardly the basis for contractual agreement by introducing this problem?

The key phrase in Dennings comment however is 'In some cases.......

Well you could also consider Article 19 of the Vienna Convention for the International Sale of Goods, which makes it a different matter if you are materially modifying the contract....

[NotAllThere]

...Thing is though to try to claim against a contract that has been accepted in a way that the original person not being advised of changes and has not acknowledge those changes makes everything incredibly complicated and expensive...

It depends how you amend things. If you, for example, remove a handcuff clause, then it's incredibly complicated and expensive for the agency to sue you for breach, and not worth their while.

[moggy]

I've found actually using a real solicitor helps get agencies who write their own rubbish contracts change them.

If you ask them to change it yourself they come out with the "No one else asked for this change" bulltulip but when they realised they are actually dealing with a qualified and experienced solicitor they back track.

In most cases the agent will phone your solicitor to confirm you aren't taking the piss and actually using one.

+1 this, plus the fact it will cost them generally to change it themselves...

[BolshieBastard]

I'll stick my head out and say this is add eco /comp persons at a foreign bank based in Cheshire!

Do I win?

[TransitTrucker]

I'll stick my head out and say this is add eco /comp persons at a foreign bank based in Cheshire!

Do I win?

Missed by a mile.

Anyone got any "lateral" ideas around limiting liability or limiting what a suing party can reasonably hope to recover. This seems far more practical than getting into a "lawyerfest" over a dodgy contract and gives a certain amount of freedom to sign immutable contracts. Plus, of course, it is getting one over those dodgy agencies that are taking the Michael.

I forgot to reiterate: it has to be legal.

[cojak]

Immutable contracts - Agencies that will not allow modifications

Then what is the point of contracts at all if one party can legally wriggle out of it without the hassle and expense of testing it in court?

Following your reasoning I wouldn't be happy if an agency could legally avoid paying for my services despite what it says in the contract.

Ultimately you sign and test, or don't sign at all.