RSS

“Protest Words” Beneath Your Signature

10 Nov

 

John Cornyn

Image via Wikipedia

 

The following is an “opinion letter” authored by the Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (now US Senator) in A.D. 1999 and sent to a member of the Texas House of Representatives.

The subject matter of this opinion letter is “protest words written beneath a person’s signature on a state document”. For example, what is the legal effect of writing “non-assumpsit” or “forced to sign under threat, duress and coercion” beneath your signature on a document. The Texas AG explains that such disclaimers can effectively nullify the document as an agreement/contract. More, he offers some nice insight and authority as to the making and accepting of valid agreements/contracts.


I disagree with the Texas AG in this regard: I’ve been taught that your signature applies to whatever text precedes your signature—not to the text that follows your signature. This seemingly “rule” seems eminently logical to me. If we could be held liable for whatever was written on a document below/after our signature, then once we signed a document it would be possible to malicious individuals to add sentences, paragraphs or even pages of text after we’d signed and claim that we were bound by our signatures to these additional terms.

However, the Texas AG opines that these various disclaimers and “protest words” written beneath (after) your signature are legally effective. He’s almost certainly right, and I’m almost certainly wrong.

Nevertheless, even if “protest words” written after your signature are legally effective, the same “protest words” before your signature should also be effective. I will continue to write my usual “protest words” (like “at arm’s length” and “without the United States”) immediately before my signature.

The original copy of this letter can be seen at:  https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/49cornyn/op/1999/htm/jc0153.htm

Office of the Attorney General – State of Texas
John Cornyn

December 8, 1999

The Honorable Senfronia Thompson
Chair, Committee on Judicial Affairs
Texas House of Representatives
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Opinion No. JC-0153

Re: Effect of certain protest words written beneath a person’s signature on a state document (RQ-0090-JC)

Dear Representative Thompson:

You ask about the effect of certain protest words written beneath a person’s signature on a state document. Your letter indicates that you are inquiring on behalf of a constituent, whose interest in this issue arises from his attempts to submit an “Offer in Compromise” form to the United States Internal Revenue Service with words such as “forced to sign under threat, duress and coercion” and “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” written alongside his signature. Letter from Honorable Senfronia Thompson, Chair, Comm. on Judicial Affairs, Texas House of Representa-tives, to Honorable John Cornyn, Attorney General (July 21, 1999) (on file with Opinion Committee). He asks about the effect of such words written on a state document, although he does not ask about any particular state document. Thus, we consider generally whether a binding agreement with the state is created if a person writes beneath his signature on a document the words “forced to sign under threat, duress and coercion” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document.”

In this opinion, we set out the general principles that would apply to a situation such as the one you describe. Other rules might apply to a particular situation, and whether or not an agreement is made might depend upon the particular facts of the situation. Thus, we do not determine whether these words written on a document will create an enforceable agreement in every single case.

In order to form a binding agreement, there must be a “meeting of the minds” of the parties to the agreement. In other words, all of the parties to the contract must agree on all of the same things; there must be mutual assent. See Solis v.Evins, 951 S.W.2d 44, 49 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no writ). “There can be no agreement when one party has the intention to make it, but the other has not.” Id. As a general rule, if there is not a meeting of the minds on all of the material terms of the contract, there is no contract.

The meeting of the minds necessary to form a contract springs from an “offer” and an “acceptance.” A contract is not formed until there has been an offer of contract terms from one party, and an acceptance of those terms by the other party. See Smith v. Renz, 840 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied).

An offer must be certain and unambiguous. See Morrow v. De Vitt, 160 S.W.2d 977, 983 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1942, writ ref’d w.o.m.). Certainty is required so that the person receiving the offer can know exactly what he is being asked to agree to. See id. If a person writes something such as “forced to sign under duress” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” beneath his signature on a document that is supposed to be an offer, the offeror appears to be saying that he does not agree to the terms of his own offer. In such a case, it could be said that the offer is uncertain and ambiguous, and cannot form the basis of an agreement. Thus, these words written beneath a signature on a document may make the document invalid as an offer.

In the event a valid offer is made by one party, it must be accepted by the other party in order for an agreement to be formed. An acceptance must not change or qualify the material terms of the offer. If it does, the offer is considered to have been rejected and a counteroffer made, and there is no enforceable agreement unless the counteroffer is accepted. See United Concrete Pipe Corp.v. Spin-Line Co., 430 S.W.2d 360, 364 (Tex. 1968).

The person to whom an offer is made must communicate his acceptance of the offer. Often, when an agreement is offered in writing, a person’s signature on the agreement is required to communicate that person’s acceptance of the terms of the agreement. See Scaife v. Associated Air Ctr. Inc., 100 F.3d 406, 410 (5th Cir. 1996). If a person writes something such as “forced to sign under duress” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” beneath his signature on a document offered to him, it could be argued that the person qualified the terms of the offer and thus indicated that he did not accept it. In such a case, there is no meeting of the minds on all of the terms of the agreement, and thus there is no agreement.

For example, in a federal case from Kansas, a college professor was offered a renewal of his employment contract with a reassignment of duties. SeeHullman v. Board of Trustees of Pratt Community College, 725 F. Supp. 1536 (D. Kan. 1989), aff’d, 950 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1991). One of the terms of the offer was that the professor contest any employment issues by following established grievance procedures. Id. at 1543. The professor signed the contract, but attached to it a memorandum stating that “I have signed this contract under protest” and that his signature “should not be construed as a waiver of any rights I might have to retain the former position or to contest the reassignment.” Id. The court held that the protest words, coupled with the professor’s expressed intention to contest the reassignment by any means, instead of by the established grievance procedure, materially altered the terms of the college’s offer. Id. 1551-52. The professor had rejected the offer and there was no agreement. Id. Thus, in some cases, certain words written on a document beneath a signature can make the signature void as an acceptance.

In other cases, however, it can be argued that where acceptance of an offer is indicated by a signature, words such as “forced to sign under duress” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” written beneath the signature are merely words of protest that do not qualify or alter the terms of the offer. This type of “grumbling acceptance,” as it is called, has been found by courts to be sufficient to form a contract. “An expression of acceptance is not prevented from being exact and unconditional by the fact that it is ‘grumbling,’ . . . ; but it must appear that the ‘grumble’ does not go so far as to make it doubtful that the expression is really one of assent . . . .” Arthur L. Corbin, 1 Corbin on Contracts § 3.30, at 472-75 (rev. ed. 1993).

For example, in a case from Oklahoma, a college professor was offered an employment contract that could be accepted by affixing his signature beneath the words “I accept the responsibilities of the appointment under the terms outlined above.” Price v. Oklahoma College of Osteopathic Med. & Surgery, 733 P.2d 1357, 1362 (Okla. Ct. App. 1986). The professor signed the offer, but wrote beneath his signature that he was doing so “under protest” because he objected to the salary. Id. at 1358. The court held that the professor’s signature on the contract was a clear acceptance of the offer, even with the added protest words. Id. at 1361-62. “The notation amounted to no more than saying I don’t like your offer, I don’t think it’s right or fair, but I accept it.” Id. at 1362. Under these circumstances, the court found that the offer was accepted and a binding contract was formed.

A person’s conduct might also indicate acceptance of an offer, even if the person’s written words suggest otherwise. Acceptance of an offer may be shown by performance and acceptance of benefits by the person to whom the offer was made. See United Concrete Pipe Corp., 430 S.W.2d at 364; McCarty v. Langdeau, 337 S.W.2d 407, 412 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1960, writ ref’d n.r.e.). For example, in a Massachusetts case, a borrower sought an extension of a loan commitment from the state housing finance agency. SeeMassachusetts Hous. Fin. Agency v. Whitney Hous. Assocs., 638 N.E.2d 1378, 1380-82 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994, review denied). The borrower signed the agreement for the extension but, because he objected to one of the lender’s conditions, attached a letter saying that his acceptance of the extension was “signed by me under protest.” Id. at 1380. When the lender sought to enforce the agreement, the borrower argued that his protest words constituted a rejection of the condition. Id. at 1380-81. Because the borrower had accepted the benefits of the agreement, the court held that he could not then disavow the condition:

The “accepted with prejudice,” communicated no more, i.e., that Whitney did not like the arbitrage condition, expected to talk more about it, but, grudgingly accepted it in preference to having the MHFA commitment expire. For its part, Whitney accepted the benefit of the extension documents, namely, the extension of the permanent loan commitment, without which the project would have been in dire jeopardy. . . . . It lies ill in Whitney’s mouth, after obtaining what it needed, to disavow the arbitrage condition.

Id. at 1382.

As these cases illustrate, whether certain words written beneath a signature in response to an offer is an acceptance or a rejection of the offer depends upon the factual circumstances surrounding the proposed agreement. In some cases the words may stand in the way of an agreement; in other cases they may not. Consequently, we are unable to say what the effect of the words “forced to sign under threat, duress, and coercion” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” will be in every case. As a general rule, however, these words may indicate that the person signing has not agreed to the terms of the document, and consequently that there has been no “meeting of the minds” that is necessary to form a binding agreement.

S U M M A R Y

The words “forced to sign under threat, duress and coercion” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” written under a person’s signature on a state document may indicate that the person signing has not agreed to the terms of the document, and consequently that there has been no “meeting of the minds” that is necessary to form a binding agreement.

Yours very truly,

JOHN CORNYN
Attorney General of Texas

ANDY TAYLOR
First Assistant Attorney General

CLARK KENT ERVIN
Deputy Attorney General – General Counsel

ELIZABETH ROBINSON
Chair, Opinion Committee

Barbara Griffin
Assistant Attorney General – Opinion Committee

POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US
An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer

About these ads
 
6 Comments

Posted by on November 10, 2010 in Signature

 

6 responses to ““Protest Words” Beneath Your Signature

  1. Hal

    November 10, 2010 at 11:01 AM

    After digesting the Honorable John Cornyn’s musings – All of which, in the esoteric enclaves of the Attorney Covens of the World, “is” [as in: MAYBE – and that’s FINAL!] “valid”, albeit: during My now, 21-year past pro per efforts, wherein; I have used “Without prejudice: U.C.C. 1-109 & 1-207 (now 1-308)” ABOVE My Christian appellation signature, written in proper grammatical rule English, with “sui juris pro per” appurtenances , making demand for Pretrial Hearing to establish Nature & Cause of charges, in re: NO D/L, EXPIRED REG., NO Ins., “traffic violations” (alleged) – of which I have prevailed in 8 of 10 cases: I thus find we are in complete accord in your premise here! … I’ve never been all-that-impressed with Cornyn, as Texas Supreme Court Justice, AG, or Senator, as he apparently attended the same “Mollification”classes as did Lil’ Billy Clinton?!?

    God Speed,
    YoOle Me

     
    • adask

      November 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM

      I agree about Cornyn. He’s a licensed attorney (a trained professional liar) who made it big in politics. That’s pretty good evidence that he’s more of a crook than a saint.
      Nevertheless, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I find Cornyn’s opinion in “protest words” to be helpful and reliable.
      But I’m still affixing my “protest words” before my signature, rather than after.

       
  2. tdr

    November 10, 2010 at 8:09 PM

    I am also not a cornyn fan. He looks like he wants to be a lifer…for a so called conservative he picks and chooses his positions depending on image.

     
  3. Billy Pugnacious Glutes

    July 7, 2011 at 11:18 AM

    I have used the common law default process with success mainly dealing with traffic citations. Affidavit of truth, declaration of sovereign elector, citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins US 118.356,370 filed, or ran in the legals of a local paper for 3 weeks is a proclaimation to the public at large and will suffice. Served on the appropriate individuals of course. This along with a writ of mandamus, paecipe, written acceptance of the party’s oath of fidelity and oath of office creates the lawful contract.The original offer by the official is the taking and filing of these oaths, we only need to file an acceptance to complete the contract. Which is to abide by the Constitution and in so doing ensure that my individual unalienable rights are secured and that no accroachments occur by any branches of government. Augustus Blackstone suggests getting a Red Cross blood donor’s card to enter into evidence of a living breathing wo)man, where the flesh lives and the blood doth flow. This helps to eliminate the presumption that you are a corporate fictional person ens legis persona. Not a good status peasonally and politically.When the prosecution hasn’t the ability to perform their major task and cannot , or fails to answer and rebut file the default notice , then a 3 day notice to cure, if they still still don’t answer on the day in court move to dismiss for …???… lack of prosecution a default judgement, which will usually never be mentioned in the record, for it would expose the FRAUD of traffic court. Some other reason will be used and cause for dismissal. Never the less
    a dismissal for any reason so long as the dismissal is with prejudice, you don’t want the charges to be able to come back from pissed off “BOB THE ASSFACE COP”. . Then submit your bill containig your costs and fees for having to defend the spurious case, that;s right if you win you get paid,(only if you ask for it which is to submit you perpared bill) then shut yer pie hole.!!! If anyone wants free copies of the common law default method I will send it free. EM me at philsndy@gmail.com. I only ask that those i send it to will pay it forward to others for the same price as I have done. Please list where you saw the offer and I’ll send it to ya. Peace

     
    • thetraveler

      November 17, 2011 at 3:45 PM

      Very insightful reply, looking forward to your email response. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
      Peace,
      the traveler,
      Steve

       
  4. steve

    February 25, 2012 at 5:35 PM

    very, very interesting that his SIGNATURE IS CONTAINED WITHIN A BOX

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,029 other followers