Signed Agreement Clause

As a general rule, a counter-clause would indicate something that specifies that the agreement can be executed in any number of counterparties and that each piece is a duplicate of the original. All parties are considered a single agreement. Contract law may change over time, as seen, given the absence of a counter-clause clause. Although it has had its use in the past, most agreements no longer need it. If the parties run multiple copies of a contract, the documents must be identical. However, it is possible to argue that the execution of a signature page does not correspond to an agreement. Although the counterparts clause is no longer really necessary, many jurisdictions still contain it. In Europe, the clause is considered superfluous. A counterparty clause expressly states that the parties agree to receive only a copy signed by the other party. Receiving a copy signed by the party is the acceptance of the offer made by the written contract. Oppositions are also useful when the parties to an agreement want to ensure that each copy of the agreement is recognized as original. Parties often require more than an original copy of an agreement for tax, regulatory or other purposes. Technically, all parties, when executing a certain number of copies of the same document, are more duplicates than counter-parties, and, as a result, some lawyers also refer to duplicates in the counterparty clause.

Nowadays, copies of signed contracts (scanned or not) are in any case as good as an original signed contract. For legal purposes, there is no difference. Or a signed original was posted on another part, signed and returned to the other party. Note that this clause is somewhat outdated, as many clauses do not contain references to signed copies sent or faxed. When designing a contract, you can insert a statement indicating that fax or email signatures are valid. A counterparty clause stipulates that the parties who sign the agreement are not obliged to sign all the same copies. Any copy of the agreement can be treated as original. From a technical point of view, the execution of several copies of the same agreement is a duplicate, not a consideration. This is why some lawyers refer to duplicates when discussing a co-part clause. Since the first use of the objections, the courts have created numerous exceptions and reservations with respect to this incriminating requirement.

In recent decades, technological advances such as printers and photocopiers have produced original documents and identical equivalents. As a result, the need for the counter-clause has almost become obsolete. Some clauses provide that an agreement is effective only when a party will hand over its signed agreement to the second party. Because the clause is so short and it is customary to execute multi-party agreements, you can include a counterparty clause in each contract you design if it is not signed in the traditional way, i.e. by all parties in person. The case law says that an agreement without a counterparty clause is binding, but you do not want to go to court to solve a problem that could have been easily dealt with when the contract was made. Since contract law is a complex area, you should always consult a legal expert when you have issues related to an agreement.