This depends on the type of typo.
If the error does not materially change the nature of the contract or miss identify one of the participant's, the contract will hold up in court.
If the typo creates real confusion about a real issue dealt with by the contract the court may uphold all, part or none of the contract.
No. It is no longer valid.
No, but the exclusion clauses under it may still be
The contract technically isn't valid if the name has changed. You should resign a contract if you would like to continue the business relationship.
No witness is required for a contract. It only helps validate the agreement.
The issue of the notary is not important. The issue is the type of contract, the wording and if the contract is valid under US not HK law.
In most cases, a contract is still valid even if earnest money is not provided. Earnest money is not required for a contract to be legally binding, but it can serve as a sign of good faith from the buyer.
valid contract
If a party did not sign the contract, he cannot be made to perform, regardless of any facts not disclosed deliberately or unintentionally.
When someone is induced into entering into a contract as a result of a false statement.
It depends on the contract If you are borrowing from a bank or other valid institution I will guaranty the contract will be valid and enforceable. If you are borrowing from your local loan shark, the "contract" may not be valid, but do you want to take the chance?
For a contract to be valid, it must include an offer, acceptance, consideration, legal capacity, and legal purpose.
A valid contract is an agreement enforceable by law. A Valid Contract is defined under Sec 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, of 1872. To know the essential features of forming a valid contract, please refer to Desire 4 Legal Knowledge