4
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
4 points (100.0% liked)
Law
1476 readers
21 users here now
Discussion about legal topics, centered around United States
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Great answer!
Notaries in civil law are actual attorneys and go to law school. They serve as neutral parties to enforce the contract and make sure it complies with the law. If I bring them a contract to sign and there's an illegal or unenforceable clause, they make us remove it.
As far an automatic enforcement, I'm not entirely sure how that plays out, but the notarial act is equivalent to a court order from what I understand, so it sounds like a request for an advanced court order in the US is similar
Do I understand that the civil notary is involved even during the early stages of drafting a contract? Does this apply to every contract or between certain parties? Or is the civil notary only included whenever one or both parties requests that a notary be involved?
In Anglo-American law, we assume the contract is legal when all parties sign it. And only later if any party disputes a clause, that is when a judge would be assigned to examine the lawfulness of its provisions.
That said, there is also the arbitration procedure, which is rooted within contract law and authorized by federal statute. In a nutshell, arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process that is specified in a given contract, where a private, neutral mediator is hired jointly by both parties to adjudicate the specific dispute. Unlike a judge, no legal precedence is set, there is no appeals process in mediation, and not all rules of evidence or procedure are adheres to. However, the contract will specify that the mediator's ruling is final, even when there is gross misapplication of controlling law. So far as I'm aware, the only class of permitted challenges to an arbitration ruling is if the mediator is found to have been partial, which is a high bar to meet.
As a concept, if all parties to a contract voluntarily agree to arbitration, then I wouldn't see a reason to prohibit the practice, as it does genuinely free up the schedule of the courts. However, as the practice exists in the USA, arbitration is all-but-forced upon consumers, employees, and other entities who have less bargaining power and would otherwise agree to the same contract without the arbitration provision. This is a problem with "contracts of adhesion", which historically were void if a party's agreement to a contract was not voluntary. But the USA courts have gutted that public interest, simplifying the question to merely "could the party not sign?", which technically exists whenever there isn't a gun pointed at their head, but doesn't take into account any power dynamic that exists, such as when there are only three providers of cloud data services and all require arbitration.
I personally believe that arbitration clauses should be voided in certain cases, under the principle that they are against public interest, which is the standard in English common law. Or under anti-trust when all the major players in a market mandate arbitration. The very existence of mass arbitration situations -- like when lots of consumers sue a single company -- is a waste of everyone's time and effort, and also deprives citizens of a right to jury trial. And the lack of precedence means that the same situation will be litigated over and over. This is bonkers and needs to end, but with USA law and arbitration contracts curtailing class action lawsuits, this is the reality we're left in.
But I digress.
Yeah, the civil notary will typically work with lawyers/parties on all sides and ensure that the notarial act is legally valid. I'm not 100% sure what would happen if the notary did something wrong.
We have arbitration and meditation too. If there is a mediator, the mediator will sometimes work with the notary to finalize the agreement.
Often agreements are split into a contract and a notarial act. More important, but legally simpler terms are in the act and complicated, but less critical are in the contract. This means that you can execute critical terms without court, but go to court about more vague/complicated terms in the contract.
Is there a concrete example about when this split would be done? I'm having trouble understanding what "complicated, but less critical" parts of an agreement would mean. Certainly, things like payment terms would be simple and very critical to an agreement, but would the less critical parts be things like technical requirements to consider a contract as delivered?
I'm not a lawyer, but in real estate transactions, the money transfer amounts, accounts and deadlines are for the notarial act. Terms like "damage to the property can be seen here and here, further damage is subject to compensation or repair by the seller" would be contract. This way, everyone gets there largest sums of money on time, and then what constitutes damage needing repair is left to courts and jurisprudence.
Child support and custody time would be a notarial act, but details of choosing schools is a contract.
Prenup decision on property sharing/separation is a notarial act, while you could have smaller contracts on expense sharing for small things.
Ah, I see. So notarial acts are the "big picture" objectives, which have been legally vetted by the notary and will take place essentially automatically, and the contract concerns itself with the small details that could be litigated in court if needed.
That's quite an interesting way of dividing agreements, and if US States would pass enabling legislation to allow such "bifurcated" contracts, I could see some very real improvements to how cases get litigated here. As you said, an improvement would be better assurance that, say, a builder will be paid most of their compensation when the job is completed, and small complaints about the quality of the work can be adjudicated separately. Whereas in our current system, the payer can withhold all payments if they allege even a minor issue, and that sort of delay only results in higher building costs to everyone. The current contracts are also massive, with different criteria for when additional payments will be made. Having some firm dates for payments would make project planning easier, since even if the project is delayed, the payments should still be on-time.