Q&As

Where a document forms a schedule to an agreement, if the document in the schedule is signed rather than being printed as a separate agreement and then signed, is it a valid execution of that document?

read titleRead full title
Published on LexisPSL on 23/04/2020

The following Commercial Q&A provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Where a document forms a schedule to an agreement, if the document in the schedule is signed rather than being printed as a separate agreement and then signed, is it a valid execution of that document?

Where a document forms a schedule to an agreement, if the document in the schedule is signed rather than being printed as a separate agreement and then signed, is it a valid execution of that document?

This question envisages a written agreement, which contains, in a schedule, the form of a further agreement, which the parties may sign on some future occasion. When that occasion arises, the parties simply sign the schedule, rather than printing out a new document in the form of the schedule and then signing it.

This question is whether that will constitute a binding contract when executed in such circumstances.

The general principle at common law is that a contract can be made quite informally and no writing or other form is necessary. This basic rule is subject to statute, which may require a particular form of contract, eg in writing and/or other formalities. The most obvious examples are contracts for the sale of land (section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989) and guarantees (section 4 of the Statute of Frauds (1677)).  If there are statutory provisions governing a contract of the type contained in the schedule to the agreement postulated, then those requirements would have to be followed, but, assuming no statute applies, then there would not seem to be any reason in principle why the fact that the parties chose to

Popular documents