If the purpose is to clearly and unambiguously communicate separate liability of the LEGAL NAME from the true name, I think it may be better to sign thus:Originally Posted by John Howard
FIRST M LAST By: First Middle, Authorized Agent
My rationale: A dba is legally considered to be merely an alias of the owner for business purposes, and liability flows through the dba directly to the owner. This is why some people find it desirable to incorporate their business, so as to separate their personal liability from that of their business entity.
Excerpt from Uniform Commercial Code in a Nutshell, 6th ed. page 228: (With respect to negotiable instruments)
If A signs the name of A to an instrument and the signature is an authorized signature of P, the following rules apply:
1) If the form of the signature shows unambiguously that the signature is made on behalf of P who is identified in the instrument, A is not liable on the instrument. [Sections] 3-402(b)(1), 1-201(b)(33). Example: Peter Principal Corporation, by Alice Agent, Treasurer.
2) If (i) the form of the signature does not show unambiguously that the signature is made in a representative capacity (Case #3 in Sec. 3-402 Comment 2) or (ii) P is not identified in the instrument (Cases #1 & 2 in Sec. 3-402 Comment 2): A is liable on the instrument to a holder in due course that took the instrument without notice that A was not intended to be liable on the instrument.
END OF EXCERPT
It seems the surest way to remove any ambiguity is to identify along with the signature the representative capacity under which the true name is signing. Thus the use of "By" before the signature and the title "Authorized Agent" after the signature. "Agent" or "Representative" would suffice as well. Use of dba alone would appear to be ambiguous, even though the true name and LEGAL NAME are not the same.
"Under Sec. 3-402(b)(2) [the signer] is prima facie liable... (if) the form of the signature does NOT unambiguously refute personal liability (ibid. p. 231)
For example, the excerpt above provides three cases where "Alice Agent" would be liable to a holder in due course.
Case #1 Alice signs "Alice Agent."
Case #2 Alice signs "Alice Agent, Treasurer."
Case #3 the name "Peter Principal" is written on the note and immediately below that name Alice signs "Alice Agent."
It is interesting to note that personal checks generally have the words "Authorized Signature" repeated over and over in micro-print to form the signature line on the check. Look at any personal check under a magnifying glass and see for yourself. This is a great way to introduce people to the "all is not what it seems" idea btw. When I just tell people about this, they usually do not believe it. But seeing is believing. To use the Matrix analogy, it is as good a "red pill" as I have found.
The micro printing of "Authorized Signature" is clear evidence that the banking system understands (but wants us not to understand) that the LEGAL NAME is not the same person as the one with the true name. Anyone signing such a check without making an unambiguous indication that true name is not assuming liability for LEGAL NAME is going to thereby assume liability on the instrument. This completes the illusion in the mind of most people that they are in fact the LEGAL NAME printed at the top left corner of their personal checks.
Reply With Quote