When What’s In the Contract Is Inconsistent with the Signature Block

What happens if a contract says that someone is personally liable for an obligation, but that person signs the contract not in their individual capacity, but as an officer of a limited liability company?

In this newsletter article, Doug Batey of Stoel Rives considers a recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion that addressed exactly that issue. Here, from Doug’s article, are the facts (citations omitted):

William and Teresa Grover formed Grover International, LLC in 2005 and shortly thereafter acquired a business. In connection with the acquisition they received an assignment of the seller’s real estate lease. Their LLC signed the assignment using a conventional corporate style of signature, as “Grover International, LLC by William Grover member.”

So far so good. But the lease assignment said that the lease was assigned to “William and Teresa Grover as individuals, dba Grover International, LLC” (“dba” of course being the customary abbreviation for “doing business as”). The lease assignment in fact referred five different times to the assignee as “William and Teresa Grover as individuals, dba Grover International, LLC.”

In 2006 the Grovers sold their business, and the new buyer later defaulted on the lease. The owner of the real estate sued the Grovers, the LLC, their seller and their buyer. The trial court ruled on summary judgment that all defendants were liable jointly and severally, including William and Teresa Grover individually.

The Court of Appeals held that the language in the contract trumped the signature block, and that if the signatory in question “did not want to be personally bound on the assignment, he should have insisted on the elimination of the language within the agreement that designated the assignee as ‘William and Teresa Glover as individuals.’”

Doug expresses surprise that the court didn’t treat the inconsistent language as an ambiguity capable of being resolved by means of extrinsic evidence. He also points out that the contract wasn’t entirely clear that personal liability was intended:

The contract language did not refer simply to the Grovers individually, but to the Grovers doing business as Grover International, LLC, which at the time was an existing LLC. The phrase “doing business as” is usually used only for situations where a corporation or LLC does business under an alternate name. In Losh, however, the dba referred to an existing and separate entity, not just an alternate name for the Grovers.

But for drafters, the moral of the story is a simple one: Don’t introduce this sort of inconsistency into your contracts!

About the author

Ken Adams is the leading authority on how to say clearly whatever you want to say in a contract. He’s author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, and he offers online and in-person training around the world. He’s also chief content officer of LegalSifter, Inc., a company that combines artificial intelligence and expertise to assist with review of contracts.

2 thoughts on “When What’s In the Contract Is Inconsistent with the Signature Block”

  1. One of my clients bought a building and ended up with a bunch of leases describing the tenants as John Doe dba Doe Corporation, Jane Smith dba Smith, Inc., etc., with similarly ambiguous signature blocks. Other leases in the same building properly described the corporate tenant, but were accompanied by a guarantee — from the corporate tenant itself. Yes, we discovered the problem during due diligence but for reasons of its own, the client decided to close anyway, and we were not in a position to condition the deal on receiving clarifying amendments.

    Mercifully all of the tenants performed through the end of their terms; I had nightmares about how to enforce the leases if we wanted to collect damages.

  2. I just started as a Contract Manager of a company that has a particular way of doing contracts. The Company contracts for a service to a physical location that can be owned and operated by two separate entities. The initial paragraph states that the (1) location (2) owner (3) operator makeup the “Participating Site”, which acts as the “Party” to the contract. But on the signature block, it just states “Participating Site” and then is signed by one person/entity (usually by the owner). I feel that either both owner and operator should sign or the “Party” (in the initial paragraph) should be one or the other, with a clause about authority to sign any agreement regarding that location. Otherwise it seems that an entity is being made a Party to a contract with out knowledge or approval. Would be interesting to know your view. I am also concerned about the definition of the term “Participating Site” including a physical location (edifice) which obviously not a legal “person”, cannot be a party to a contract. Thank you


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.