Definition of &quot;relative&quot; in UK contract law
<p>I have a contract that requires a witness signature. The witness cannot be a relative.</p>
<p>At what point are two individuals not considered relatives? For example, could my third-cousin be my witness? i.e. our common ancestor is our great-great-grandparent.</p>

<h2>There isn’t one</h2>
<p>There are lots of definitions scattered throughout the laws of England and Wales, Scotland and, Northern Ireland. Family law, inheritance law, marriage law, criminal law (for domestic violence etc.), immigration law all have their definitions in each of the three UK jurisdictions. These definitions don’t necessarily correspond.</p>
<p>There is no generally applicable definition in contract law. The parties to the contract have to agree what they mean by “relative” if they use the term.</p>
<p>For your purposes, it’s immaterial.</p>
<p>First, you don’t have a contract that “requires a witness signature”, you have one where the other party has requested one. While there are <a href="http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/viewdoc.asp?id=100088" rel="nofollow noreferrer">some</a> contracts that must be in writing to be valid at law, there are none that require a signature and none that require a witness to that unnecessary signature.</p>
<p>So, if you don’t sign it, or don’t have your signature witnessed or have it witnessed by a relative <em>and the other party accepts that</em>, either explicitly or implicitly, you have a binding contract. If it emerges latter that the witness was your sister (who I think everyone would agree is a relative) that will be of no practical effect on the operation of the contract.</p>
<p>That said, it shows a certain sloppiness to start a contract by technically breaching it (even if that breach is not actionable) so find a witness who isn’t related to you at all. To your knowledge that is, since every human is related at some degree.</p>

contract-law