https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l en-us 2020-10-14 14:44:12 UTC 2025-10-05 22:23:09 UTC hello@padlet.com mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828872944 Unlike the defendant in New Hanover Rent-A-Car, Dr. Dorado did not print her name for identification purposes and sign her name for authentication purposes.  Rather, the facts seem to show that Dr. Dorado’s standard procedure was to print her name, regardless of the document’s purpose.  It therefore appears likely, in light of the common law’s interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4, that Dr. Dorado’s printed name will not invalidate the covenant not to compete. ]]> 2020-10-14 14:46:18 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828872944 mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828876381 First, Dr. Dorado’s printed name on the contract constitutes a “duly signed” contract and the covenant not to compete is likely enforceable ]]> 2020-10-14 14:46:59 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828876381 mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828880318 In Yaggy, the parties formed an agreement to convey land, but the defendant argued no binding contract existed because the document contained only defendant’s printed name, not his signature. The Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiff, holding that signing a document simply means affixing one’s name thereto with the intent of authenticating the document. Accordingly, a signature may be written or printed on a contract to qualify as “duly signed.”  Yaggy, 7 N.C. App at 597-98, 173 S.E.2d at 501-02.

]]> 2020-10-14 14:47:53 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828880318 mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828882319 In our case, Dr. Dorado printed her name in both a blank intended for identification and in a blank intended for authentication of the terms of the agreement.  The extrinsic evidence reveals that Dr. Dorado also printed her name on other forms, including the Employee Agreement, a W-4 form, and a retirement plan.  While W-4 forms are typically intended for identification and general informational purposes, both the Employee Agreement and retirement plan were documents that required acknowledgment and assent to their terms.  Dr. Dorado’s printed signature on those forms constitutes authentication of the policies set forth by each. ]]> 2020-10-14 14:48:21 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828882319 mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828883487 The fact that Dr. Dorado printed her name, rather than signed her name in cursive, does not negate her agreement to the terms of the contract, specifically the covenant not to compete. ]]> 2020-10-14 14:48:36 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828883487 mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828884849 North Carolina law states that “No contract . . . limiting the rights of any person to do business anywhere in the State of North Carolina shall be enforceable unless such agreement is in writing duly signed.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4 (2012).   

]]> 2020-10-14 14:48:55 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828884849 mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828888093 Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendant’s printed name on the agreement not to compete did not constitute authentication of the document.  New Hanover, 136 N.C. App. at 646-47, 525 S.E.2d at 490-91. ]]> 2020-10-14 14:49:40 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828888093 mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828889214 North Carolina common law provides guidance in interpreting how the statute applies to a printed name, holding that “a printed name may constitute a sufficient signature.”  Yaggy v. B.V.D. Co. Inc., 7 N.C.  App. 590, 598, 173 S.E.2d 496, 501 (1970). ]]> 2020-10-14 14:49:55 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828889214 mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828890900 The common law further allows that, where ambiguity exists as to whether an agreement is signed, courts should “consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether defendant signed the document.”  New Hanover Rent-A-Car, Inc., v. Martinez, 136 N.C. App. 642, 646, 525 S.E.2d 487, 490 (2000).

]]> 2020-10-14 14:50:18 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828890900 mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828892394 The defendant in New Hanover alleged that her printed name was insufficient to create a binding covenant not to compete because, while she printed her name on a blank space intended for purposes of identification, she purposely left blank a space labeled “signature.”  The Court of Appeals held that this ambiguity necessitated a review of the case’s extrinsic evidence.  The evidence suggested the defendant consistently printed her name in blanks intended for identification, but signed in cursive when the blank was intended as a space to acknowledge and assent to the terms of the document.  

]]> 2020-10-14 14:50:37 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828892394 mhouck9 https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828895031 When a party prints his or her name on a contract out of habit or preference without indicating an intentional repudiation of the terms, the printed name is sufficient. ]]> 2020-10-14 14:51:11 UTC https://padlet.com/mhouck9/y4lyvjbhspz4bt5l/wish/828895031