Hi Lovers
Seal (contract law)
Until modern statutory reforms in contract law, a seal was widely recognised by courts in common law jurisdictions as removing the need for consideration (value) in a contract. This reflects classical contract theory, in which consideration was viewed as a formal aspect of a contract, so that a seal could be considered an alternative form. A seal was not per se a type of consideration, but rather raised a presumption of consideration (courts have varied in their opinions of whether this presumption was rebuttable). See, e.g., Marine Contractors Co. Inc. v. Hurley, 365 Mass. 280, 285-86 (1974).
The rationale for this special treatment of sealed contracts can be understood in terms of the legal formalities that are associated with sealing a document with a wax seal. Firstly, the following of the legal formality of affixing a seal to a document was evidence of the existence of a contract. Secondly, the need to use a seal – widely known to have legal significance – served to impress upon the parties the significance of the agreement being made. This element of deliberation is important in the context of many legal theories for why donative promises are not generally enforceable in the same way as contracts: there is a concern that donative promises are sometimes made under pressure (for example, from family members) without adequate deliberation, which explains why a requirement for the legal formality of the seal might substitute for consideration to give enforceability to donative promises. Thirdly, the following of the legal formalities through the use of a seal demonstrated beyond doubt that a legal transaction was intended by the parties.[1]
Like we wrote the other day, with regard to the name the folks gave us we are the donee, but as for the BC the gov gave (granted) us, it has a seal onto it for it seems, enforceability.
The common law rule which required that a deed made by a private individual had to be sealed to be validly executed was finally abolished in 1989 by the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The Act implemented recommendations made by the Law Commission of England and Wales in their 1987 report Deeds and Escrows[7] and replaced seals with the requirements that the document had to explicitly state that it was being executed as a deed, and had to be witnessed.[8]
Keep in mind that the grantor is with the liability. Notice to “the common law rule” regarding a private individual. When have you ever acknowledged a deed as a private individual (man)?
There are title deeds and land deeds.
Seal of office
7. (1) The Registrar General shall have a seal of office. If you look at the Coat of Arms for Ontario it is very similar to the emblem on the BC but, it is not the same. The parts in colour are not on the one on the BC. I would say that is the Seal of Office of the BC and cert true copies of SOB.
Seal of office–effect.
374.050. 1. The seal now used by said department shall be the seal of the office of the director of the department of insurance, financial institutions and professional registration, and the same may be renewed whenever necessary.
2. Every certificate or other paper executed by said director in pursuance of any authority conferred on him by law, and sealed with his seal of office, and all copies of papers in the office of said director, certified by him and authenticated by said seal, shall, in all cases, be evidence equally and in like manner as the originals, and shall have the same force and effect as the originals thereof would, in any suit or proceeding in any court of this state.