bound by contract?

[TheMonkey]

I've been screwed by this before.

Number the paragraphs manually with red pen after each section below it i.e.:

[ 4 ]

Works wonders.

[tomella]

If, and it's a very big if, you can show that the agent told you that the contract terms were the same as the previous contract then you may have an argument. Did they tell you in writing or just verbally that the contract hadnt changed? Either way it will be difficult, you should have read the contract first regardless.

It would be my word against theres i think. I have no documentary evidence to say the contract terms are the same as before, and i dont think they have any documentary evidence to prove that they told me the terms had changed. The only thing iether party has to go in is the contract. Which i think is why basing a defence around not being told is on very flakey ground.

On a more positive note, the clause in question is very weak, and there is no actual definition of what it means in the contract. Its just a wooley one liner.

I think the argument will more likely centre on whether the clause is a valid clause or not, rather than arguing that we were fooled who into signing something that we didnt know about.

[DaveB]

I cant prove the latter. To be honest it maywell have been in there when i signed it, i may have just missed it. It was upto me to read it, as you say.

What this other legal bod is telling me which is confusing me though, is that they say they can base a defence around the fact that the agency not telling me about the change to the contract,and the change to the contract was not explained to me (my previous contracts didnt have this clause in there). It just doesnt sound right to me.

If, and it's a very big if, you can show that the agent told you that the contract terms were the same as the previous contract then you may have an argument. Did they tell you in writing or just verbally that the contract hadnt changed? Either way it will be difficult, you should have read the contract first regardless.

[tomella]

If you signed the contract containing the clause you wern't aware of then you are bound by it. You should have read it first.

If the the clause was added after you signed it, and without your agreement, then it cant be enforced and you are free to ignore it.

I cant prove the latter. To be honest it maywell have been in there when i signed it, i may have just missed it. It was upto me to read it, as you say.

What this other legal bod is telling me which is confusing me though, is that they say they can base a defence around the fact that the agency not telling me about the change to the contract,and the change to the contract was not explained to me (my previous contracts didnt have this clause in there). It just doesnt sound right to me.

[XLMonkey]

... for this reason, it is a good idea to initial every page of the contract that you sign and keep your own copy. That way, no-one can amend the clauses after the event without it being obvious.

[DaveB]

If you signed the contract containing the clause you wern't aware of then you are bound by it. You should have read it first.

If the the clause was added after you signed it, and without your agreement, then it cant be enforced and you are free to ignore it.

[tomella]

Can anybody clarify the following for me please, as ive had different advice on this matter from two legal professionals now. The question is, if you have signed a contract which contains a clause that you were unaware of when you signed it, can you then argue that the clause is not valid/cannot be used against you because it was added without your knowledge? I would have thought that you cannot, as, my understanding of it is that it does not matter whether you explicitly agreed to it or not, youve signed a contract and are bound by its contents. Or is there an argument to say it should have not been added without your consent? (the clause was not in earlier contracts). Any advice would be appreciated.