If a celebrity autographs a legal document without realizing it, are they bound by its terms?
<p>Suppose a celebrity autographs whatever fans hand over (usually in an enthusiastic, crowded, and rushed setting).</p>
<p>Suppose one item being signed is a thousand-dollar I.O.U. (promissory note or some such). A million dollars would look ridiculous in court but $1,314.55 sounds reasonable. The celebrity didn't keep a copy of whatever they autographed.</p>
<p>The celeb's lawyer would likely advise against signing anything. The celeb's movie studio, record label, etc. would likely say to keep your fans happy and everyone does it. The celeb could hand over presigned autograph cards, but I think many celebs still sign whatever fans offer.</p>
<p>A celeb could say they didn't know what it was but that comes under the principle of coulda-woulda-shoulda. That defense usually fails in court.</p>
<p>How does the celebrity protect themself and still sign autographs in a rush?</p>

<p><a href="https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/contracts-basics-33367.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">According to Nolo.com</a> five requirements must be met for an agreement to be binding and enforceable by a court.</p>
<p>Your scenario meets one requirement at best (see comments). Therefore, there is no legally binding agreement.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Contract Requirements</p>
<p>To be enforceable by a court, every contract (whether written or oral)
must meet several requirements. Let's take a look at each of them.</p>
<p><strong>Consideration.</strong> As Cole Porter wrote in the song, True Love, &quot;You give to me and I give to you.&quot; That sums up consideration. Each party
has to promise or provide something of value to the other. Without
this exchange, there is no contract. (Learn more in Nolo's article
Consideration: Every Contract Needs It.)</p>
<p><strong>Offer and acceptance.</strong> There must be a clear or definite offer to contract (&quot;Do you want to buy this?&quot;) and an unqualified acceptance
(&quot;Yes!&quot;).</p>
<p><strong>Legal purpose.</strong> The purpose of the agreement must not violate the law. For example, you won't be able to enforce a loan agreement that
charges interest in excess of what is allowed by usury laws or a
service agreement to hire someone to rob a bank or kill your
mother-in-law.</p>
<p><strong>Capable parties.</strong> To be &quot;capable&quot; of making a contract, the parties must understand what they're doing. For example, there is a
presumption that minors and insane people usually don't know what
they're doing and, for that reason, contracts they enter into won't be
enforced under certain circumstances. (Learn more in Nolo's article
Who Lacks the Capacity to Contract?)</p>
<p><strong>Mutual assent.</strong> This is also sometimes referred to as a &quot;meeting of the minds.&quot; The contracting parties must intend to be bound by their
agreement and must agree on the essential terms.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If this isn't enough, there is another common law defense available to such a defendant called <em>estoppel</em>. Courts look to the behavior of the parties to determine if there was an actual contract or not. If the behavior does not fit the alleged agreement, then the plaintiff is <em>estopped</em> from enforcing the words on paper.</p>

<h2>“I didn’t agree to that”</h2>
<p>A signature is evidence that you signed it; the surrounding circumstances determine if you agreed to it.</p>
<p>A signature neatly on the bottom, perhaps with a handwritten date, is good evidence you agreed to it. An autograph scrawled in texta right across the middle is poor evidence that you agreed to it.</p>
<p>Each party testifies explaining why there is (or isn’t) a debt, how they know one another(if they do) and if, on the balance of probabilities, the fan proves the debt (which won’t happen) the celebrity pays.</p>

<h3>This would not constitute a valid binding contract</h3>
<p>In order for a contract to be binding, there must be a <a href="https://www.upcounsel.com/meeting-of-the-minds" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;meeting of the minds&quot;</a> between the parties—that is, both parties must have actually agreed to the terms of the contract.  Situations in which there is not considered to have been a meeting of the minds includes if the parties signing the contract reasonably had different understandings of its terms.</p>
<p>If one party is tricked into signing the contract and thus is unaware of the existence of <em>any</em> contractual terms, there can hardly be said to have been mutual agreement to its terms by both parties.  Assuming sufficient evidence was presented to prove this, the contract would be invalidated.</p>

contract-law signature