Counterparts: Difference between revisions

It is fun counting the client bulletins that say “while a counterparts clause may not be strictly necessary, it ''is'' [[best practice]].” Not for long, but for about five minutes. They you realise they all say this.  

''Normal'' contracts — even spicy ones, like [[deed]]s<ref>See [http://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/signed-sealed-delivered-execution-of-deeds-and-documents-and-how-it-might-go-wrong/ Osborne Clarke] as authority for this.</ref> — ''do not require a counterparts clause''. How so? Well, think back to your first {{tag|contract}} law lecture: for a contract to be effective you need an [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[consideration]].<ref>No, you do '''''not''''' need the [[intention to create legal relations]].</ref> “Execution”, however you manifest it, is simply ''a way of indicating [[acceptance]]''. [[Acceptance]] does not require a quill. ''It does not require a signature at all''. One may accept [[orally]], by a gesture, or even just by behaving in a way that can only really be explained by imputing your acquiescence to the terms of the {{t|contract}} being argued about. All one needs to do is satisfy oneself — and the court from whom you are praying aid — that your counterparty communicated [[acceptance]] ''somehow''.