>can you be part of a contract if you were not a party to it?
Your meaning is not clear.
It is certainly possible to be "involved" with, or "affected" by a contract without signing it, if that's what you mean. For example, it is
very common for trust funds to be set up for children who have no knowledge whatsoever of them, let alone sign them. There may be verbal or implied
contracts, for which there is no paper and no signing involved. You may be selected for service by someone who is contractually obligated to procure
such service, even though you are not named. In this case, you won't be on the contract, and you may not even realize there is one, but you will be
still be "affected" by it. In theory, you could even combine all three.
What if two people were to establish a purely verbal contract to procure the services of an unnamed third party to act as executer for a trust fund
for a child who hadn't been conceived yet?
On the other hand, if you mean "are you legally bound by contractual obligations to which you are not bound" then, of course not. But the question
is circular. You might as well ask "can something be red if it's not red?"
But...and I think this most likely, if you really mean "can there be legal consequences for failing to honor provisions of a contract which you took
no action to state or imply acceptance of?" then the answer is YES. For instance...have you ever signed, stated, or implied any sort of definative
contract to refrain from killing people? Probably not. All the same, even though you've taken no action to enter into any such contract, if you were
to run out and kill someone, it's altogether likely that you would suffer legal repercussions for it.
>your parents created a legal entity (the Principle)
>You are an agent of the Principle
Try to think of it more as a DBA
>the Principle enters debt, not you, you are ONLY the Agent.
>Who owns the Principle? The State/Province does. So who
>owes the debt? Certainly not you.
Do me a favor and look up promissory estoppel
. Basically, if you have
already implied legal acceptance of a condition, you can't very well change your mind simply because it is no longer convenient.
>Who owns the Principle? The State/Province does.
I assume you mean
." And no, the State would no more "own" the principal you are describing it they would any other person or entity allowing an agent
to act on their behalf.
>most of the answers are in the Bible
Since you mention the Bible...and since we're speaking of repercussions of law for contractual obligations to which you are "not a party," why not
read Deuteronomy 5:9
next time you get the chance?