[basicplus2]

I find that if you simply change the wording of their contract to what you are happy with, initial all your changes, sign all pages, sign it, photocopy it, and send it in, nobody rejects it.

Later when they try to hold you to the original contract, you simply ask them for the contract you signed..

This has worked for me everytime :)

[arghwhat]

Note that not notifying the other party of changes could possibly be construed as fraud, depending on what legal system you are under.

But even when notified of the changes, the other party is quite likely to accept reasonable changes when they have a fully signed copy, as it is more convenient than pushing back...

[tialaramex]

If they don't want the signed contract back, that's the first time I've seen it. Every employer I worked for wanted the contract back with a signature. Newer ones were OK with an electronic (not digital, just pixels instead of ink) signature but they all wanted a signature.

When they get the modified contract back that's their notification of your adjusted terms. Is it polite to ask them to print a modified contract? Yes. But it may not always be practical.

[This is not legal advice, duh]

Because employer/ employee is asymmetric (unless you're literally hired by an individual) my understanding is that it is good sense for them to prefer your amended contract if the terms you wanted are acceptable, because the law in many places says if you have a take-it-or-leave-it contract then the person in the "take it or leave it" position, here the employee, is entitled to interpret any ambiguous provisions in the most advantageous way. Having amended the contract, you are now on equal footing with the employer and any remaining ambiguity is resolved equitably which means less risk of nasty surprises for them.

[arghwhat]

They of course need the signed contract back - all parties need a copy with all necessary signatures.

My point is that you should not sneak in changes with the signature. If the contract is changed, you should notify the parties of the changes, not pretend you just signed their copy. If you do not notify them, it might be seen as an attempt to trick the other parties.

How that would play out depends on your local legal system, with options ranging from "too bad", "contract or clause invalidated or reverted", all the way to "prosecuted for fraud".

"Your should just have expected me to have changed the contract and compared it with the previous version to find all the changes!" is not an argument that would get court approval up here...

[dottedmag]

Wait until contracts start to come in DocuSign, where the only thing you can do is to scribe something obscene instead of a signature.

[jacquesm]

There is no way I will every use DocuSign. Think about it: the chances in the longer term of DocuSign being hacked approach '1', and that means that everybody that ever uploaded their signature to that site runs the risk of having other documents signed with that signature without the recourse that it wasn't them uploading their sig to some online service.

And then there is this:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/com...

[na4ma4]

DocuSign doesn't even contain your signature, it just makes one up.

All the rental property agreements use DocuSign and my signature looks perfectly legible.

Unlike my real signature :)

[abawany]

Remember that some contracts protect against this intrinsically by stating that no amendments beyond those stated in print are valid.

[WalterBright]

Just line that clause out.

[arcastroe]

I loled. But genuinely curious. Is this tongue in cheek, or is it sound?

[WalterBright]

It's sound. Lining out things and initial and counter-initial makes it legal. Done that many times.

[CogitoCogito]

I can’t see any reason why that change wouldn’t be invalid if others are. (Though it’s probably good to bring it up explicitly so there are no surprises for anyone.)

[WalterBright]

That's why both parties have to initial such changes.