Is it possible for a person to (successfully) argue that if they signed something, just because they wrote their name on the same piece of paper, it doesn't mean that they actually agreed to it? For example, in some contracts I see statements like "I agree as follows:" at the top, or "by signing you agree to the above mentioned terms and conditions" at the bottom. Is this necessary? I once had a job offer where they asked me to sign irrelevant of my decision to accept or reject offer. However, the contract still had a check box for whether I would be accepting or refusing it.
668 2 2 gold badges 6 6 silver badges 20 20 bronze badges asked Dec 12, 2015 at 2:03 685 2 2 gold badges 5 5 silver badges 14 14 bronze badgesYes, it helps if the contract explicitly states: "the below signatures indicate acceptance of the terms set forth herein."
Or something to that effect. This is called a binding statement or a binding clause. This is useful for exactly the reasons you speculate in your question. Clarity.
The written document is not the contract. It is evidence of the contract. Therefore, the binding statement is evidence of the parties' intent.
Although a binding clause is useful, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to bind the parties.
The parties can still be bound without a binding clause. The statement merely adds additional evidence and clarity in case one party were to claim that s/he never intended to be bound by their signature. Because, let's say, the other party said something similar to what you describe in the OP.
And, finally, other elements must be present in order to bind the parties. Things like a meeting of the minds and consideration are two but not all of those necessary elements.