Changing contracts question

Now, this isn't really relevant to me right now, but it's something that I've pondered a few times.
Say I receive a contract unsigned by either party, I know that I can cross out clauses and write something underneath and sign and date it. If the other party counter signs, it becomes part of the contract.

My question however is, can I also use a PDF editor to change it? And if so, do I have to sign and date it? Or can I just not bother to sign and date and just as I have to read all of the contract carefully, the other party has to as well?
I would assume that 99 times out of 100, it would go unnoticed if you are allowed to use a PDF editor without signing and dating it, so I could see an argument saying you're trying to trick the other party.

 

The parties have to agree to the terms, if they do then fine. Signing a contract is evidence of agreement. Whether they have read it or not is irrelevant

 

If you use a PDF editor then you still ammend/initial and sign where appropriate. Reading a file does not mean acceptance of conditions.

 

Sorry, so are you saying that I could just change "Tenant is not allowed any pets" to "Tenant is allowed to keep a pet Tyrannosaurus Rex and two woolly mammoths" and wouldn't have to sign at that clause, but just at the bottom at of the page and at the end of the contract, and it would be binding if the other party counter singed?

 

Any edit needs to be initialled by both parties.

In a PDF editor you get the original contract and then you cross out or add clauses and initial. You don't edit the actual text.

 

If someone signs it and then you change it it is an amendment

 

I think I previously suggested adding something to the special conditions along the lines of "The purchaser agrees to hold a fully catered BBQ including XZY menu items/refreshments on each anniversary of the settlement day for the first five years after the completion of the transaction".

 

I don't think I understand what the question is. What's the difference with a pdf editor compared to just altering a contract with pen as you would normally?

 

I think the point is the other party may not notice that something has changed in the signed copy returned to them - and the other party then unknowingly signs their acceptance.

 

You only sign something you read. You never assume a contract is the same as previously agreed without comparison.

And I never sign a contract without also first seeking legal advice.

 

Is there a bit of an honour system where if you use a standard rei contract you dont try to replace parts just hoping the other side doesnt read it?

 

There is an equitable doctrine of rectification that may assist in having the contract rectified to reflect the true agreement of the parties, regardless of one party trying to sneak an amendment in.

 

I don't get what it's with contracts and things being initialled. It's just writing two letters. Anyone in the world could write those two initials on a contract and it's initialled. Unlike a signature which is a lot harder to forge.

 

It doesn't have any technical meaning, but factually it makes it easier to prove that the person turned their mind to that clause specifically.

 

What happens if someone forged that person's initials? Very easy to do with just two initials who anyone can write on a contract.

 

hence why you always keep a copy when you initial or sign.

 

If you are party to the contract you can ask for full signatures or a new printed version incorporating amendments.

 

Would it not be safer when anyone asks you to initial next to something then you just make it a habit of always just signing like usual?

 

Ah ok. Just saw your post Terry

 

Why would this make any real difference? What are you protecting against exactly?