5 ms·

Do you really do this, and is striking out a line of a contract binding?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nielsole 2y ago
I've seen legal departments redlining drafts of a contract repeatedly until an agreement had been reached. The final contract still contained the red lines.
darkwater 2y ago
Why not? A labor contract is a 2-ways street. If the company doesn't like the new version, they will not sign it and not hire you.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  Exactly. And just like I have to be fine with not getting the job if my conditions are not acceptable to them, they have to be fine with not getting me if their conditions are not acceptable to me. Considering the considerable effort that has gone into this by the time you are negotiating a contract, letting it fail over something that "is not important" and "is never enforced" would be very stupid of them. So if they are unwilling to budge, that either means they were lying all along and the thing that's "never enforced" and is "not important" actually is very important to them and definitely will be enforced, or that they are a company that will enforce arbitrary and pointless rules on employees as long as they think they can. Neither of which is a great advertisement for the company as an employer.
  - darkwater 2y ago
    > So if they are unwilling to budge, that either means they were lying all along and the thing that's "never enforced" and is "not important" actually is very important to them and definitely will be enforced, or that they are a company that will enforce arbitrary and pointless rules on employees as long as they think they can. Most of the time is basically just FUD, to coerce people into following the rule-that-is-never-enforced
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      It's always "not enforced" or "just a template" right up until they decide they need to pressure you into something and then they will have no problem referencing those items. Do not sign a contract unless you are willing to entirely submit to everything in it that is legally binding. Also be careful with extremely vague contracts. My employment contract was basically "You will do whatever we need you to do" and surprise surprise, unpaid overtime is expected.
mpweiher 2y ago
Yes, I really do this. Have done since I started working. At one of my first jobs as a student employee they offered me a salary X. In the contract there was some lower number Y. When I pointed this out, they said "X includes the bonus. It's not in the contract but we've never not paid it". OK, if this is really guaranteed, you can make that the salary and put it in writing. They did, my salary was X and that year was the first time they didn't pay the optional bonus. Didn't affect me, because I had my salary X. IANAL and I don't know how binding this is. I'd think it's crucial for it to be in both copies of the contract, otherwise you could have just crossed it out after the fact, which would of course not be legally binding at all and probably fraud (?) In practice, it doesn't really come up, because the legal department will produce a modified contract or start negotiating the point. The key is that the ball is now in their court. You've done your part, are ready and rearin' to go, and they are the ones holding things up and being difficult, for something that according to them isn't important. UPDATE: I think it's important to note that I am also perfectly fine with a verbal agreement. A working relationship depends on mutual trust, so a contract is there for putting in a drawer and never looking at it again...and conversely if you are looking at it again after signing, both the trust and the working relationship are most likely over. But it has to be consistent: if you insist on a binding written agreement, then I will make sure what is written is acceptable to me. You don't get to pick and choose.
- _1_1_1_1_1_1_ 2y ago
  [dead]
- interludead 2y ago
  I’m the kind of person for whom it would be hard to say it directly. You’re awesome.
- WhitneyLand 2y ago
  Verbal agreement has lots of risks. First you’re offering up a lot of trust to people you might have just started working with. Or, they could be very trustworthy and just remember things differently. And of course people come and go in companies all the time they just might not be there. At least if you do a verbal agreement follow it up with an email confirming the details.
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
IANAL but I've seen strikes throughout contracts, and then an initial+date from both parties. Weird how in 2024 an initial that's so easily forgeable can be legally binding
- cubefox 2y ago
  I would guess that the initial is not the important thing, but that the strike is present on both copies of the contract.
- retrac 2y ago
  A verbal contract, which has no record at all, can also be legally binding.
  - alfiedotwtf 2y ago
    I guess like all laws it depends on jurisdiction, and more importantly, if you can convince the judge/magistrate that the contract did or did not happen
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      Yeah, but the law still sets the default baseline for he judge / jury / whatever. In the Nordic countries (at least Sweden) -- as techno-modern and bureaucratic as they may be -- that still includes verbal agreements. (The handshake is probably not a legal requirement, though I suppose it could be taken into consideration as evidence -- "You even shook hands on it, so you must have realised that what you had just discussed were atually the terms you were agreeing to.")
WhrRTheBaboons 2y ago
(EU perspective) it is binding. you just add both parties' initials/signature on the margin of each line that was changed.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
WhitneyLand 2y ago
Usually it’s binding, because it’s presumed both parties signed after the changes. However it can be disputed, and a company could argue about the timing or details. That’s why you’re often asked to initial changes, makes it clear that both parties have agreed to the modifications.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

I've seen legal departments redlining drafts of a contract repeatedly until an agreement had been reached. The final contract still contained the red lines.

darkwater 2y ago

Why not? A labor contract is a 2-ways street. If the company doesn't like the new version, they will not sign it and not hire you.

mpweiher 2y ago
Exactly. And just like I have to be fine with not getting the job if my conditions are not acceptable to them, they have to be fine with not getting me if their conditions are not acceptable to me. Considering the considerable effort that has gone into this by the time you are negotiating a contract, letting it fail over something that "is not important" and "is never enforced" would be very stupid of them. So if they are unwilling to budge, that either means they were lying all along and the thing that's "never enforced" and is "not important" actually is very important to them and definitely will be enforced, or that they are a company that will enforce arbitrary and pointless rules on employees as long as they think they can. Neither of which is a great advertisement for the company as an employer.
- darkwater 2y ago
  > So if they are unwilling to budge, that either means they were lying all along and the thing that's "never enforced" and is "not important" actually is very important to them and definitely will be enforced, or that they are a company that will enforce arbitrary and pointless rules on employees as long as they think they can. Most of the time is basically just FUD, to coerce people into following the rule-that-is-never-enforced
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    It's always "not enforced" or "just a template" right up until they decide they need to pressure you into something and then they will have no problem referencing those items. Do not sign a contract unless you are willing to entirely submit to everything in it that is legally binding. Also be careful with extremely vague contracts. My employment contract was basically "You will do whatever we need you to do" and surprise surprise, unpaid overtime is expected.

mpweiher 2y ago

Yes, I really do this. Have done since I started working. At one of my first jobs as a student employee they offered me a salary X. In the contract there was some lower number Y. When I pointed this out, they said "X includes the bonus. It's not in the contract but we've never not paid it". OK, if this is really guaranteed, you can make that the salary and put it in writing. They did, my salary was X and that year was the first time they didn't pay the optional bonus. Didn't affect me, because I had my salary X. IANAL and I don't know how binding this is. I'd think it's crucial for it to be in both copies of the contract, otherwise you could have just crossed it out after the fact, which would of course not be legally binding at all and probably fraud (?) In practice, it doesn't really come up, because the legal department will produce a modified contract or start negotiating the point. The key is that the ball is now in their court. You've done your part, are ready and rearin' to go, and they are the ones holding things up and being difficult, for something that according to them isn't important. UPDATE: I think it's important to note that I am also perfectly fine with a verbal agreement. A working relationship depends on mutual trust, so a contract is there for putting in a drawer and never looking at it again...and conversely if you are looking at it again after signing, both the trust and the working relationship are most likely over. But it has to be consistent: if you insist on a binding written agreement, then I will make sure what is written is acceptable to me. You don't get to pick and choose.

_1_1_1_1_1_1_ 2y ago
[dead]
interludead 2y ago
I’m the kind of person for whom it would be hard to say it directly. You’re awesome.
WhitneyLand 2y ago
Verbal agreement has lots of risks. First you’re offering up a lot of trust to people you might have just started working with. Or, they could be very trustworthy and just remember things differently. And of course people come and go in companies all the time they just might not be there. At least if you do a verbal agreement follow it up with an email confirming the details.

alfiedotwtf 2y ago

IANAL but I've seen strikes throughout contracts, and then an initial+date from both parties. Weird how in 2024 an initial that's so easily forgeable can be legally binding

cubefox 2y ago
I would guess that the initial is not the important thing, but that the strike is present on both copies of the contract.
retrac 2y ago
A verbal contract, which has no record at all, can also be legally binding.
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  I guess like all laws it depends on jurisdiction, and more importantly, if you can convince the judge/magistrate that the contract did or did not happen
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    Yeah, but the law still sets the default baseline for he judge / jury / whatever. In the Nordic countries (at least Sweden) -- as techno-modern and bureaucratic as they may be -- that still includes verbal agreements. (The handshake is probably not a legal requirement, though I suppose it could be taken into consideration as evidence -- "You even shook hands on it, so you must have realised that what you had just discussed were atually the terms you were agreeing to.")

WhrRTheBaboons 2y ago

(EU perspective) it is binding. you just add both parties' initials/signature on the margin of each line that was changed.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

WhitneyLand 2y ago

Usually it’s binding, because it’s presumed both parties signed after the changes. However it can be disputed, and a company could argue about the timing or details. That’s why you’re often asked to initial changes, makes it clear that both parties have agreed to the modifications.