What can the person do in such cases? And further more, what can the judge do to stop this paradox?

  • It's called fraud and if anything negative might happen, you get a lawyer.
    – user4657
    Nov 11, 2018 at 18:43

2 Answers 2


What if somebody copies your signature on a contract that says you can't sue them?

what can the judge do to stop this paradox?

I will assume that by "copying the signature" you mean "without the person's consent". In that case, the contract is void and consequently unenforceable. However, it would need to be proved that the person whose signature was unlawfully used did not intend to be a party to that contract.

For a contract to be valid, the parties must have knowingly and willfully entered it, whether it is via a document or through their subsequent conduct/actions. False pretenses, identity theft, and akin offenses preclude these two essential requirements of any contract. Moreover, if the person who forged the signature is a party to the contract, then that unlawful act clearly contradicts the prerequisite "covenant of good faith and fair dealing" that is presumed in contracts.

The remedies or actionability available to a person whose signature has been forged depend on the laws of each jurisdiction.

  • Why do you believe that a party needs to enter into a contract "knowingly and willfully"?
    – bdb484
    Nov 11, 2018 at 23:10
  • @bdb484 how could a system of contract law work otherwise?
    – phoog
    Nov 12, 2018 at 5:51
  • @phoog The way it works throughout common law: by relying on objective manifestations of assent, rather than unknowable subjective intentions.
    – bdb484
    Nov 12, 2018 at 6:10
  • @bdb484 I am (not) surprised You ask Me in terms of "my belief" on something basic like this. The legal def. of contract is based on terms such as meeting of the minds, deliberate, agreement (Black's Law Dict). If not entered knowingly and willfully, a contract could be stricken as fraud, hardship, coercion, or not consensual, not constructive, etc. Manifestations of assent implies being made willfully (unless provably coerced) and with knowledge (at least of what the party provably knew). Your reply to phoog reinforces my answer as to "[parties'] subsequent conduct/actions". Nov 12, 2018 at 11:18
  • You are making a lot of unsupportable leaps here. How did the willfulness defense work out for the defendants in Lucy v. Zehmer and Berry v. Gulf Coast Wings?
    – bdb484
    Nov 12, 2018 at 15:04

A fraudulent contract wouldn't be binding, but to take a different approach there's also the question of consideration. What did you agree to receive in return for agreeing not to sue the other party, and can the other party show that you received it?

From the link :

Consideration can be anything of value (such as an goods, money, services, or promises of any of these), which each party gives as a quid pro quo to support their side of the bargain. Mutual promises constitute consideration for each other.1 If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is a "bare promise" and is unenforceable.

Possible jurisdictional question (the link refers to English Law), but English Common Law gets around...

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .