Sealed contracts must be written or printed on paper. These are conclusive documents between the parties as soon as they have been signed, sealed and delivered. In the past, seals have been affixed to written contracts to testify to the intention of the parties to be legally bound by the conditions they contain. Originally, the courts required that these seals be made from wax. However, over time, the formality of this requirement eroded and courts began to accept alternative means of „sealing“ a written instrument, including paper printing. Today, jurisdictions that recognize sealed documents simply request the inclusion of the word „SEAL“ in the signature line. Quickly v. Nell (1861), which is widely cited as an example of nominal consideration, included a sealed contract. Although the seal distinction has already been abolished by Indiana`s statute, it is likely that the parties considered the seal enforceable, much like the $1 nominal counterpart below classical conventional theory. Historically, the requirements that distinguished a document from other legal instruments of the contract were its form, legal value and delivery. Under customary law, a document had to be sealed and provided in writing, on paper (or parchment or parchment), to achieve the desired legal effect. In some courts, the parties believe that a sealed document is sufficient, even if there is no seal. While the inclusion of the term „SEAL“ may be the distinguishing feature of a sealed document, there are other factors to consider by a court when determining whether a contract was signed under seal.
If you are not sure whether an agreement in which you have participated falls within this definition, contact a qualified lawyer to help you make this decision. For more information, see our blog post: What`s the difference between a certificate and an agreement? The common law rule, which required a document made by an individual to be sealed in order to be properly executed, was finally abolished in 1989 by the Commissions Harm Act, 1989. The Act implemented the recommendations of the Law Commission of England and Wales in its 1987 Report Deeds and Escrows and replaced Siegel with the requirements that the document expressly state that it had been performed and had to be declared an act.  The justification for this particular treatment of sealed contracts can be understood with regard to the legal formalities related to the waterproofing of a document with a waxed seal. First, the next legal formality of affixing a seal to a document is proof of the existence of a contract. Secondly, the need to use a label – which everyone knows has legal meaning – has served to give the parties the importance of the agreement reached. This element of reflection is important in the context of many legal theories on why pledges are generally not enforceable in the same way as contracts: there is concern that pledges are sometimes under pressure (e.g.B by family members) without proper consideration, which explains why a requirement for the legal formality of the seal may replace the taking into account of pledges. . .