Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Just say it "Under protest/duress" next to your signature. Signing V.C. doesn't mean anything to the person looking at the paper. And if they're forcing you to sign some perfunctory paper anyway, they probably will not notice if you sign your name "John Smith Under Protest/Duress" anyway.
"Vi coactus" or "V.C." is used with a signature to indicate that the signer was under duress. The signer uses such marking to signal that the agreement was made under duress, and that it is their belief that it invalidates their signature.
An example of the Vi Coāctus usage is when signing a contract where the person signing uses “V.C.” with his or her signature to indicate that the signer was under duress. If you are being forced to sign a contract against your will, you may consider using a VC signature.
You can put it before your signature, after your signature, or use it instead of your signature. It is absolutely worthless in this situation and does not in any way void the document.
What V.C. stands for is Latin for Vi Coactus which means literally "under constraint". This should normally be sufficient on any document which you are forced to sign to bear witness to the fact that it was done under duress.
Now, I heard about the idea of using vi coactus (V.C.) before signing your signature, but I was curious if there was any precedent at all to suggest that this would have any impact.
Contracts signed under duress can be considered void or unenforceable if it can be proven that the signature was not given voluntarily. To prove duress, you need to demonstrate that the pressure applied was severe, leaving you with no reasonable alternative.
Signing the ticket means that: You were informed that there is a traffic violation claim against you. You were informed that you need to appear in court to deal with it. Since you do not admit to any wrongdoing, signature on the ticket is not an evidence of anything.
(i) By placing the letters V.C. anywhere within the signature, the man or woman signifies by custom the principle of Vi Coactus or "under constraint " to sign, which immediately invalidates the whole document; or (ii) If prevented from making clear a signature is made by force, a man or woman may use an ellipsis ". . ."
Every news outlet is reporting that (paraphrasing) "it is believed the phrase invalidates the signature", but none of them go beyond that to actually confirm whether it does or not. So, TL;DR: does "Vi Coactus" actually do anything from a legal standpoint? Or is it just an urban legend?