Letter Of Intent To Provide Services: Fill & Download for Free

Take a look at this picture.Can you guess who they are? No they aren't flight attendants or ground staff. All of them are A320 pilots!They belong to the June 2016 batch, the month their training completed. They began as candidated facing exams and interviews and they ended as pilots.No offense, but this question makes no sense. Yes IndiGo cadet pilot program guarantees employment as soon as you pass your selection test. You will be handed a letter of intent and you sign a contract stating “minimum years of service to Indigo”.IndiGo needs pilots thats why they made this program in the first place. If they don't want to employ new pilots they wouldn't have created this program or should all the posts be filled they will simply suspend the program till the need is felt for more pilots.IndiGo cadet pilot program is not a flight school or training contractor. They won't train you to go free after your training. You are branded as an IndiGo pilot the moment you sign the contract.

It is certainly possible to write something on the signature line of a contract without thereby being bound to that contract.Just write anything that cannot reasonably be interpreted as assent to be bound.What you cannot do, however (and what I suspect you are seeking to do), is sign a contract in some manner that allows you to gain the benefits of having signed while also avoiding any obligations or concessions.So, let’s say I give you a contract for legal services and you write “not agreeable” on the signature line.Either you could argue that your writing still manifested an intent to be bound (i.e., that “not agreeable” meant, “I don’t like it, but I assent grudgingly”)—in which case you and I are both bound by the terms of the contract.Or you could argue that your writing did not manifest an intent to be bound (i.e., that “not agreeable” meant “I do not assent”)—in which case you are not bound… but neither am I. So you are not obligated to pay and I am not obligated to provide services.There is no way that you can argue that I am bound and you are not, or that you are only bound to pay some lesser amount that you deem “fair”. And if you make the argument that it wasn’t a valid contract after receiving my services, you’ll be bound to pay anyway, under one of a handful of alternative legal theories (unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, etc.).There is a narrow exception, and a misinterpretation of this exception is the source of most of these pseudo-legal crank theories about how to avoid contract obligations.Under the Uniform Commercial Code § 1-308, you can write something like “without prejudice” or “under protest” in an acceptance of a contract to make it clear that you are reserving your legal rights.This does not mean that you simply are not bound by the terms of the contract. It only means that you have not waived any rights to challenge the terms of the contract in a court of law.But such a challenge would proceed under the ordinary standards of contract law—meaning with only narrow and limited exceptions (such as “unconscionability”), the court is very likely to uphold the contract against your challenge. The right to bring a case is not the right to win it.So, if my contract says, “You pay me $500,000, and in exchange, I draft a cease-and-desist letter to your annoying neighbor,” and you sign it “under protest”… it’s probably still enforceable as a matter of contract law.**[It would very likely be grounds for a grievance against me under Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, but that’s a professional discipline issue, not a contract law issue.]You had full knowledge of what it meant, you were at perfect liberty to reject the offer, and there were no circumstances that made you unable to seek alternative representation or that gave me undue bargaining power over you (the neighbor’s conduct was annoying, not imminently life-threatening).Your “under protest” or “without prejudice” would not give you any right to void the contract if it were otherwise not found by the court to be void or voidable.But a small number of hucksters and cranks calling themselves ”sovereign citizens” have decided that it means, “I do not consent to having this document used against me in any way… but I still get all the benefits of signing.”To put it bluntly, “sov-cit” legal theories have about as much legal merit and value as the work product of a dozen monkeys on typewriters—except the monkeys at least might get it right by random chance alone.Original Question:“If I sign a contract with "not agreeable" or anything other than my name, does that mean I have not legally signed that contract? Can I sign and it not be legally binding? If so, how?”

A2A - U.S. perspectiveWhether a letter of intent (LOI) is binding in its entirety, binding in part, or non-binding depends on how the LOI is drafted.I blogged about this issue a few years ago. Quoting What Does Non-binding Mean and Why Should I Care?:This post discusses the meaning of non-binding with respect to a letter of intent (LOI) or a memorandum of understanding (MOU). (Non-binding has a similar meaning in other legal contexts, such as legislation or arbitration, but I will not discuss those contexts here.)Although I will refer to solely an LOI in the remainder of this post, the following pertains to an MOU, as well.Please note that whereas “memorandum of understanding” and “letter of intent” are the terms typically used in the U.S., the corresponding term in the U.K. is “heads of terms“.The purpose of an LOI is to summarize the basic terms of a relationship into which the parties wish to enter. It also specifies that the parties will enter into negotiations to prepare a definitive agreement establishing that relationship.Stating Whether an LOI is Non-bindingThe LOI should state expressly whether it is binding or non-binding.Binding means that the parties are obligated to carry out the provisions of the LOI. They ultimately must sign a definitive agreement.Non-binding means that either party can break off negotiations at any time. The parties can walk away without having signed a definitive agreement.In my experience, an LOI typically should be non-binding. At the time the LOI is signed, the parties may not know much about one another. As discussions proceed, it may become clear to one party, or to both, the the relationship cannot work as originally expected. There is no reason to force an unworkable agreement on the parties.Making an LOI Non-bindingThe two most important provisions that make an LOI non-binding are the following.The LOI should state expressly that it is non-binding. “Non-binding” should appear in both the subject line and the first paragraph.The LOI should state that neither party will be obligated to sign a definitive agreement unless the party is satisfied that the agreement is in its best interests.A non-binding LOI may, however, have binding provisions. Most importantly, confidentiality provisions should be binding.Sometimes Binding is AppropriateSometimes it is appropriate for an LOI to be binding. For example, one of my clients was selected to provide high-priced, sophisticated software and associated services to one of its customers. Negotiating a definitive agreement would take several weeks, but work needed to begin right away because of a tight deadline.The parties quickly entered into a binding LOI for the first phase of the project. Services and pricing for that phase were specified. The LOI included a binding obligation to execute a definitive agreement before the deadline for completing the first phase.In summary, the important point is not that an LOI should be non-binding. The important point is that one should think about whether an LOI should be binding or non-binding, and should prepare the LOI accordingly.