“I do sign implied contracts. I do it by, for example, granting you permission to enter my land.”
I almost didn’t recognize that as a play on words—humor.
When tpaine used the word “sign” I infer he meant: The subscription of one's name; signature. To mark with characters or one's name. To sign a paper, note, deed, &c. is to write one's name at the foot, or underneath the declaration, promise, covenant, grant, &c., by which the person makes it his own act, To sign one's name, is to write or subscribe it on the paper. Like when you take pen in hand and write your name on a check.
When you used the word “sign” I infer you meant: To signify. To make known something, either by signs or words; to express or communicate to another any idea, thought, wish, by a nod, wink, gesture, signal or other sign. A man signifies his mind by his voice or by written characters; he may signify his mind by a nod or other motion, provided the person to whom he directs it, understands what is intend by it.
But what I wrote was “If our Constitutions contract doesn't need signing and therefore is not a contract for that reason, then neither an implied contract or an adhesive contract are contracts because they don't need signing.”
Responding to that by attributing one meaning of the word sign to the first part and another to the second part may be humorous but it is not truly responsive.
I know he did, but he's wrong. Contracts are created all the time with a word or a handshake. If you read up on contract law, you'll be surprised to learn that the signature is not in fact what creates a contract. A contract is made when a party makes an offer, and another party accepts the offer. A signature is optional, and does not play an integral role. Rather, the signature constitutes evidence that you accepted the offer.
So when I speak of "signing a contract," I'm using the term in its colloquial sense of meaning "agree to." My "humorous" statement is only funny because you don't understand the actual role of signature in contracts.
Responding to that by attributing one meaning of the word sign to the first part and another to the second part may be humorous but it is not truly responsive.
It is if you understand contract law: an implied contract is an agreement which, although not explcitly stated, nevertheless exists between the two parties. To prove that it exists, you must prove that there's an agreement between us. To prove that, you look at whatever explicit agreements we've made, and at our interactions.
So, for example, if I point to someone, a passer-by then shoots him and holds his hand out, and I place $100 in his hand, then a contract killing has just taken place even though no words were spoken.
Conversely, you can't select two people at random and claim that they have an "implicit contract" between them. There must be evidence of the existence of an agreement.