I wouldn't call it insane, it's similar to the idea that if you email someone a summary of what was agreed, and they don't reply contesting it, they've accepted that version of events.
Basically one of the parties has provided a written record of their version of events, if you don't agree with it, you need to speak up.
In the end they've told you the contract they want you to work under, they have provided you with a copy and you seem to be happy to carry on working and taking their money. If you have a problem, why didn't you speak up? So it's implicit that you accept the new contract.
Perhaps it's not the law in your country, but it's definitely not insane if you're in a grey area and in this instance the law sides with the written contract, not the avoidance strategy.
You guys are all wrong. There is no blanket automatic acceptance of contracts if you ignore them in the UK.
There IS automatic acceptance of updates to previously signed contracts, ONLY if the original signed contract contains "terms permitting the employer to make changes from time to time" without your permission.
That is completely different than automatic acceptance of all contracts that are left unsigned and ignored.
Acceptance by conduct is a straightforward and accepted principle of English law.
In the same way as continued use of a website can constitute acceptance of terms of use, showing up for a job having been provided with a contract, but having not signed it, can also constitute acceptance of that contract.
If you don't like contract terms, firstly don't sign up to them but secondly don't start working at a place as if you had signed up to them.
It would be difficult to argue the contract wasn't binding if you had acted in compliance with certain of its terms. The more specific those terms you are complying with, the less likely you would be able to claim you weren't bound by the whole contract.
For example if the contract states you have to travel to a particular ___location once a week, and you comply with that obligation, you would be less likely to argue you weren't bound by the whole contract.
> However, if you put up with the change without
> protesting, there is a good chance that you will
> be viewed as having implicitly accepted the change,
> losing your right to object to it.
I'd be surprised if the US hasn't inherited implied contracts via common law.
No, don't quote out of context. That's ONLY if you already previously signed a contract with them, and that original contract specifically allowed them to make future updates without your permission.
> Basically one of the parties has provided a written record of their version of events
Not in this case being discussed (procrastination in signing). The company doesn't have a written record of their version of events, namely a copy of the contract with your signature.
