It's not exactly an isolated case. When I turned 18 I was presented with the same document. To my mother's dismay, I pointed out the flaws and then marked in the necessary negatives in pen to render the document useless before signing it. Since the other party (a member with legal power at the clinic) did not sign after me, I'm not sure the form is actually binding on either of us. Could somebody clarify what precedent holds in the case of a single party signing a contract and having it accepted but not signed by the other?
EDIT: It occurs to me that I should mention that there is no place for the other party to sign on the document in the first place. There may have been a photocopied signature already on the form.
I doubt that these documents are contracts. They aren't intended to create a legal obligation on the part of either party but rather are intended to be evidentiary documents to prove that the privacy policy was disclosed to the patient and the patient told the doctor's office that he understood it.
Your signature on the document is there to refute any future claim you might make that you were not presented with the privacy information.
I'm assuming the privacy form is a separate document. If it is part of a larger document then perhaps that document also includes elements that make it a contract. In that case the lack of signature on their end is probably not a problem.
It's a common belief that contracts must be in writing and signed. In fact only certain kinds of contract must be in writing and signed (the biggies are contracts that cannot be performed within one year, contracts that transfer interests in land, and contracts for the sale of goods for $500 or more).
Otherwise, all you need is for both parties to have agreed on the terms of the contract and a thing called "consideration". Consideration is a subtle and elusive concept but roughly it means each person obligated under the contract is getting something valuable in exchange for taking on the contractual obligation.
If both parties agree to something and both uphold their end of the bargain then it doesn't really matter whether or not they actually managed to form a legally enforceable contract. That only matters if something goes wrong and one or more parties want to use the courts to enforce the contract or win damages for breach of contract.
If you have to sue someone over a contract you'll have to prove that there actually was a contract formed with them. That will be a lot easier if the contract was in writing and you had them sign it.
Thanks for the information! I doubt it will come to a confrontation, but it's been an itch I couldn't scratch for almost a year now pondering the implications.
You can agree to something through your actions regardless of whether you've signed something. If you are presented with a contract, don't raise any objections but don't sign it but then both parties act as if they'd accepted it (for instance you pay some money, they give you a thing), then it's likely that you'll both be deemed to be bound by the contract.
In this instance by presenting you with the form they likely legally signified their willingness to enter into the agreement.
My old employer had a "non-compete" contract they wanted new hires to sign along with the rest of the employment contracts. The stipulations were basically that you couldn't work for any competitor within a year of leaving employment with them.
I disagreed with it on principle and signed the rest of the paperwork, but not that one, and no one ever mentioned it.
Now you're saying that I am bound by a contract I did not accept? How's that make sense? What about Kevin Smith at Paisley Park?
Standard, IANAL and TINLA, plus things will depend on where you are.
But my guess is that probably no - you signed everything else but not that - that's not acting as if you agreed to something, that's acting in a way that differentiates that document.
Had you signed nothing (that is treated everything the same) but carried out your duties, accepted pay and so on then you're more likely to have been bound by it along with everything else.
Ideally of course you would have stated clearly that you weren't signing it - it's still a bit ambiguous - though the overriding thing is that it's normally too expensive and too much effort for companies to enforce them anyway, especially if there is ambiguity.
Worth noting that in a lot of countries (for instance the UK and I believe the EU generally), non-compete clauses, certainly the generic sweeping ones, usually aren't binding as they're a restraint of trade and therefore violate competition law.
There usually is no need for them to sign it. They offer, you accept (with your signature as evidence), which is the essence of a contract. There is no need for them to "accept your acceptance".
As you changed the document, it may or may not be binding. Effectively you offered them new terms, and I wouldn't like to speculate as to if they accepted them (e.g. by treating you).
They need to accept the changes, if any. The lack of a place for them to sign is proof that they intended for it to be signed as-is, or not at all.
Contracts aren't valid unless both parties have accepted them. The doctor's office can't accept a contract they haven't read yet, and any changes to a contract make it a new contract.
I know such precedent exists in cases like this where you are to sign a non-negotiable contract. This is why most EULA's are largely worthless especially when it comes to standard retail software.
EDIT: It occurs to me that I should mention that there is no place for the other party to sign on the document in the first place. There may have been a photocopied signature already on the form.