Contracts under seal v under hand
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
Contracts may be executed under seal (signed by the parties, witnessed and most importantly made clear that it is executed as a deed - see below) or under hand (a 'simple contract' that is just signed by the parties).
[edit] Consideration and limitation periods
There are two important differences between simple contracts, and contracts that are under seal (deeds):
Firstly, simple contracts and contracts under seal have different limitation periods. An action founded on a simple contract cannot be brought after six years from the date on which the cause of the action accrued. The limitation period for a contract under seal is 12 years.
Secondly, unlike a simple contract, a contract under seal does not have to be supported by valuable consideration.
For example, where a collateral warranty consists of unilateral undertakings by one party, the contract must be a contract under seal if it is to be enforceable. It is important to note that whilst consideration is not necessary for a contract under seal in the absence of valuable consideration and, arguably, in the absence of something more than mere nominal consideration, the remedy of specific performance will not be available in respect of the contractual undertakings (see Milroy v Lord).
Specific performance is an equitable remedy requiring the contract breaker to fulfil their contractual obligations, rather than awarding damages for breach. Equity does not assist a volunteer, hence the need for consideration. It is suggested that a deed, which relies on merely nominal consideration, could be rescued by the addition of a consideration, which consists of ‘the mutual undertakings’ of the parties to a deed.
[edit] Legislation
Much of the law relating to the execution of deeds was swept away on 31 July 1990 by the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 dealing with the execution of deeds by individuals, and by the Companies Act 1989 dealing with the execution of deeds by companies.
Section 1(3) of the Act provides that a deed must be signed by the person who is to be bound and the signature must be attested by a witness. If this procedure is not followed then the document will not be valid as a deed.
Section 1(2)(a) provides that a document shall not be a deed unless it is made clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making it. It follows that the document must be described as a deed and the attestation clause must include a statement that it is being executed as a deed. If such descriptive words are not included then the document will not be valid as a deed.
The Act does not abolish the old common law rule that to be effective a deed must be delivered by the person who is to be bound. Delivery does not mean the physical handing over of the document but the evincing of an intention, whether by words or conduct, that the party is to be bound. Such intention was satisfied prior to the Act by signature and it is submitted that signature will continue to satisfy the requirement of delivery.
Companies may still use their seals to execute a deed provided that this is in accordance with their Articles of Association. Section 130 of the Companies Act 1989 introducing a new section 36(a) to the Companies Act 1985 provides by sub-section 4 that if a document is signed by a director and the secretary of the company or by two directors of the company and is expressed (in whatever form of words) to be executed by the company it will have the same effect as if it had been executed under the common seal of the company, i.e. a deed.
Further, sub-section 5 provides that a document which makes it clear on its wording that it is intended to be a deed has the effect of a deed even though the specific requirements for execution dealt with in sub-section 4 above are not complied with. For example, a document that is described as a deed and is executed by one director of the company will operate as a deed. Extreme care must be taken to ensure, if it is intended only to create a simple contract, that a company giving a collateral warranty does not accidentally execute the document in such a manner as to give rise to a deed.
[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
- Articles of agreement.
- Breach of contract.
- Causes of construction disputes.
- Collateral warranties.
- Contract claims.
- Construction contract.
- Engrossment.
- Letter of award.
- Litigation.
- Technology and Construction Court.
- Title.
[edit] External references
Featured articles and news
Heat pump announcements, what homeowners need to know
An 'ultimate guide to heat pumps' from a heating company.
Construction contract awards reach £7.1bn in February
Their highest level in seven months.
The journey to sustainability in heritage
Research is the key to better understanding.
Heritage approaches to adaptation, mitigation and loss.
Bridging the gap between policy, finance and installation.
Development on brownfield land
Definition, background, policy and the latest consultation.
With the Design Framework for Building Services.
Retrofit of Buildings, a CIOB Technical Publication
Pertinent technical issues, measures and the roles involved.
ECA joins HSE campaign to support mental health
Working Minds’ five simple steps based on risk assessment.
Mental health in the construction industry
Mental health issues in brief with related articles.
Transitional arrangements, Building Control and the BSR.
For pre-October buildings with substantial progress by April.
How to write an inspection and test plan
ITPs for quality control and assurance particular elements.
Why quality counts in domestic ventilation systems
From products, to systems to the installation.
Empowering the Future with CIOB Academy
Lifelong learning, upscaling, and reskilling for the built environment.
Winners of the 2024 ASBP Awards
Project, Product and Initiative according to the 6 pillars.
Comments
To start a discussion about this article, click 'Add a comment' above and add your thoughts to this discussion page.