Can you be held legally liable for a contract you don't remember signing?
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Depends.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Did you actually sign it though? Just because you may not remember it doesn't mean that you didn't.
It surprises me how often people will sign things without reading what they are signing.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Makes me wonder what the user agreement said...
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Perhaps if one is aware of the contract and still partakes of the benefits that accrue, one could be held ethically responsible for the responsibilities that come with those benefits.
(I'm assuming that this is also a metaphorical thread. My answer would be detailed in a different direction if you were asking for legal advice. Again, context is everything. )
[ March 18, 2004, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Legally - yep. Unless you can prove that you were incapable of giving consent at the time (temporary senility?).
In a more metaphoric context - I don't know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are other possible ways to be excused. If it's not clear the document was a contract, or if the signature was obtained under false pretenses ("Can I have your autograph?") you may have an out. This is very fact specific.
Short answer: if it's critical, see a lawyer.
Dagonee
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Context is...
We agreed to come to this life to learn to submit ourselves to the will of the Father. If we meet certain conditions, we can return to the Father.
My problem is if we don't remember the reasons for comming down here, it seems unfair to hold us accountable to what I consider a contract between us and God.
The only way I can see a way out of this conundrum is to put more faith in Grace and less in Works. As an LDS member, I feel we focus on works.
How do other christian religions reconcile this issue, or is it only me with this issue. I prefer this forum, as everyone seems to be well read, educated, and not restricted to the LDS environment while still having an interest in it thanks to Card.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
What if you learn about the "contract" and gain a testimony of it through the power of the Holy Ghost?
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I don't think works interfere with exercising faith. Though I've often heard this argued by non LDS folks, Lutherans in particular.
But if you are familiar with the parable of the olive tree, if either faith or works is out of balance the fruits go wild. That's one way of looking at that parable, anyway, is that the tame branches are faith and the hearty wild roots are works. If the branches get too "lofty" the tree can start to die. If the roots get too much "choice" soil, the tree can die.
While I'm fixing spelling, I might add that another case where contracts are void is if the signor is under duress. Like a fiancee who is presented a pre nup immediately before entering the church to get married.
[ March 19, 2004, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll just make the comment that since we agreed to this contract up front, knowing that we would not be able to remember it, it's fair. Or at least, we agreed to any unfairness.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Contracts are not binding on one's heirs, only on one's estate (and not even then, always).
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Not speaking for any particular faith but just for me personally, you can only do your best, right? It's unfair to ask any more of you than you were created to be able to give.
C.S. Lewis had a treatise on faith that explained that it was more about trust and less about assenting to a set of facts or obligations. A lot of people approach their relationship with God (and Santa Claus) as the relationship between the parolee and the state: "you do this and we won't put you in jail." Lewis pointed out that it should be more like the relationship between a dog and master, or, as the bible itself and your own post state, like a father and child. What kind of father makes a contract with his child for any other reason than to teach the child?
You are approaching this thing as if God makes some sort of contract under which He is obligated and which seems to give Him something to gain. The sole purpose of a contract offered by God, who has nothing to gain and, if we are to believe He is a Father to us, has no reason to hate us, must be to teach us something about discipline and obligations. It's a lesson, not a way to heaven.
Now, far be it from me to say that the acts of obedience are unimportant-- they are all important. God is moving us towards being the kind of people who can enjoy heaven... so we have a lot of learning to do. The things He asks of us are His plan for getting us there-- for teaching us to be the kind of people we were meant to be. Acts of obedience are hands-on learning to submit to His will. As James says "faith without works is dead." Lewis says arguing about faith and works is like " asking which blade of a pair of scissors is more important."
Have faith in His love for you, not in the contract. The contract is just the homework... not the final exam.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Personally, I think you should check into the background of the notary public. Was he certified? Is the seal properly embossed? Can two other witnesses vouch for his character?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
But this contract is like evidence you mail to yourself. If you open the envelope before the trial, the notarizing effect of it being mailed is void.
quote: We agreed to come to this life to learn to submit ourselves to the will of the Father. If we meet certain conditions, we can return to the Father.
This is the basis of Islam. The LDS faith is based on loving God by coming unto Christ and receiving the Holy Ghost.
I read something interesting the other day, a woman was saying she used to excited about how when she died, she could review her life with the Savior and show him how little of the atonement she needed. But she realized (this is my summary) each of us needs an infinite atonement. Not just a little, the whole thing.
[ March 19, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Isn't comming unto Christ and recieving the Holy Ghost through the waters of baptism meeting certain conditions? Can you elaborate how my statement you quotede is more Islamic then Christian?
[ March 19, 2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by Shinda (Member # 6343) on :
Sorry, I don't like the analogy.
You are using the legal system, a product of man's finite reasoning, to consider the ultimate plans of God, who is infinite and perfect.
Besides, even using your analogy, the problem is not are you responsible for a contract you don't remember signing (if not, who would ever "remember" signing any contract they didn't want to keep). The problem is that you are informing me of a contract I signed, but so is the guy over there, and those contracts are different. Meanwhile, five lawyers and a notary are demanding I follow the contracts I don't remember signing with their bosses.
Each of those folks have big thick lawbooks talking about the contracts I supposedly signed. Yet each is unable to show me my signature anywhere.
Now either they are all wrong, or just one is completely right, or perhaps, all of them are mostly right, but somewhat mistaken. After all, they haven't seen the contract themselves either. They are just repeating what they have been told by people, etc.
They come to Witness the contract they signed, and use that as proof that I signed one as well. Yet the vast majority of these are Hear-Say Witnesses, not allowed as testimony in court.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)