However, everything changes when the document in question is executed “under seal”. Under Pennsylvania law, the statute of limitations for “an act written under seal” is twenty years. Thus, if the same promisor does not comply with his obligations under a sealed written act, he remains subject to prosecution for twenty years, instead of just four. The relaxation of the definition of a seal has generally been accompanied by a reduction in distinctions for sealed contracts. This trend can be seen as a parallel with the modern relaxation of the courts in their interpretation of the fraud law and reflects the development of modern contract theory from classical contract theory. It was noted that “about two-thirds of [U.S.] states have now passed legislation that removes the binding effect of the seal,” although several major jurisdictions such as New Jersey and Wisconsin have retained the concept.  Today, anyone who signs a contract is not expected to understand the obscure ratings of the seal. For this reason, many U.S. states have removed the distinction between sealed and unsealed instruments.
The Uniform Commercial Code (CDU) also abolished the distinction when a contract concerns the sale of goods. Historically, the requirements that distinguished an act from other contractual legal instruments were its form, legal effect and delivery. According to the common law, an act had to be sealed in writing on paper (or parchment or parchment) and delivered in order to achieve the desired legal effect. Unlike a sealed contract, an ordinary contract requires consideration which is a promise. Such a consideration could simply be a promise to do something in exchange for something else. For example, it may be a promise to sell your car to someone else for a fee. However, a sealed contract completely removes this element and replaces it with a seal instead. Schnell gegen Nell (1861), which is widely cited as an example of nominal considerations, was a sealed treatise. Although the seal distinction has already been abolished by Indiana law, it is likely that the parties considered the seal enforceable, just as the $1 nominal consideration would have done under classical contract theory. “Any document, whether or not it affects the property, shall be both signed and sealed and attested by at least one witness who is not a party to the act, but no particular form of words shall be required for certification.” A sealed contract is considered a more formal contract. In general, valuable consideration is required to enter into a binding contract, but no consideration is required for a sealed contract.
Traditionally, such a contract carries an irrefutable presumption of consideration. (The term “irrefutable presumption of consideration” means that the person who owns the contract can expect to receive the declared value of the contract and that the contractor (the one who signed the contract) will deliver the specified value in accordance with the contract without argument. Sealed contracts must be made in writing or in printed form on paper. These are conclusive documents between the parties once they have been signed, sealed and delivered. The words “signed” and “delivered” in the above sentence are obvious. Less obvious is the legal implication of the word “sealed.” The humorous origins of the concept of the “seal” are rooted in feudal times as a method of authenticating the signer of a document or his emissaries (in fact, only men had the legal capacity to own property and sign documents) in the same way that fingerprints are used today to identify a person. Even states that allow the sealed treaty will have strict restrictions on such agreements. In fact, the courts of those states might still conclude that the contract is not really secret. Even if the court finds that the contract is under seal, it may require the parties to amend the contract to include the consideration element and to remove any reference to a seal. What does all this mean? Now that it relates to the terms of the written contract, very little. The essential conditions of a contract are in no way modified by the inclusion of the word “SEAL” in the signature line.
The language of the contract is the language of the contract, and there is not much that these four letters can do to change it. The law decided a long time ago that a real or imitation seal attached to a promise is a good consideration for that promise, despite the fact that the man who makes the promise puts the seal on it. .