Counterparts: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
THIS IS NONSENSE.
THIS IS NONSENSE.


Outside the formal requirements of execution — [[deed]]s ''of lease'' (that is, not just ''normal'' [[deed]]s)<ref>''Ordinary'' old [[Deed|deeds]] do not require a counterpart clause: I cite [http://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/signed-sealed-delivered-execution-of-deeds-and-documents-and-how-it-might-go-wrong/ Osborne Clarke] as my authority</ref>, contracts for the [[conveyancing|conveyance]] of land, that kind of thing — for an agreement to be enforceable you need to fall back on your first contract law lecture. You need:
Outside the formal requirements of execution — [[deed]]s ''of lease'' (that is, not more ''normal'' [[deed]]s<ref>''Ordinary'' old [[Deed|deeds]] do not require a counterpart clause: I cite [http://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/signed-sealed-delivered-execution-of-deeds-and-documents-and-how-it-might-go-wrong/ Osborne Clarke] as my authority</ref>), contracts for the [[conveyancing|conveyance]] of land, that kind of thing — for any other type of legal agreement to be enforceable you need only fall back on your first {{tag|contract}} law lecture.  
 
You need:
*[[offer]]
*[[offer]]
*[[acceptance]]
*[[acceptance]]
*[[consideration]]
*[[consideration]]<ref>NO YOU DO NOT NEED AN [[intention to create legal relations|INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS]].</ref>


Here we are talking about [[acceptance]]. Acceptance does not require a quill. It does not need a signature (digital [[or otherwise]]) at all. One may accept [[orally]], by gesture, or even just by behaving in a way that can only be explained by reference the putative contract being argued about. All a counterparty needs to do is satisfy a court that one communicated acceptance.
Here we are talking about [[acceptance]]. Acceptance does not require a quill. It does not need a signature (digital [[or otherwise]]) at all. One may accept [[orally]], by gesture, or even just by behaving in a way that can only be explained by reference the putative contract being argued about. All a counterparty needs to do is satisfy a court that one communicated acceptance.