I am trying to find an authority that says that signatures must be at the end of a contract, that is, a signature only means acceptance of what appears on it. It seems that the point is so obvious that it has not been expressed in any statute or case law. Can you give me a clue as to where to look or do you know about an agency? If you own a business, how you sign your contract is very important. The “signature block,” as it is called, defines who signs the contract. While this may sound a bit ridiculous, there is a big difference between signing a contract as an individual and signing a contract as a business owner. As a general rule, each party should receive at least one original version of the agreement (i.e. a version with an ink signature). If more than one copy of the agreement is signed, it is useful to indicate in the signature block the number of copies initially executed. However, many people are not careful that the signature blocks or the way a treaty is signed are signed. Contracts in which a signature does not match the signature block or where the signature block is not properly configured are often displayed.
Sometimes the parties never enter into a fully signed contract and are perplexed when it is necessary to read the contract to resolve a dispute. I agree with Vance. However, I have seen cases where the text written under the signatures was questioned because it was not certain that the text was added after the treaty was signed. Whether a contract is signed manually or electronically, you must take care of the authentication of the signature and be sure that the signatory is entitled to act on behalf of the company. With regard to paper contracts in a routine business context, it is common practice – and probably generally sufficient – to ensure that the signatory is a public servant or that he appears to have the power to sign the treaty. And signatures are usually not authenticated – you simply rely on the fact that the copy that is displayed in the email or email was actually signed by the signatory. However, there are ways to authenticate signatures, z.B if they are known. A less precise term for these last words of agreement would be the testimonium clause: it is less precise because, in principle, no testimony is needed since the decline of the Roman Empire and Roman law, except that for acts of English law and notarized acts in European continental systems, a witness would be co-signed, as can be reflected in a clause. Why not use this last example? First, the assertion that the parties had the agreement executed by their duly accredited officials is pointless. The term implicitly refers to the (old) theoretical position that a corporation can be considered a separate personality.
However, by nature, a legal person can enter into the agreement only through the representation of one or more individuals. Second, you should not include a guarantee in the concluding clause that states that the exporting individual is authorized.