Why “No Contract, Return to Sender” is a dishonour and will land your person with a ball of fire.

“No Contract, Return to Sender” is simply a dishonour under contract law. Why you ask?

If you  were an employee of say a bank, and the bank’s Human Resources department sent a letter to your home address saying that they needed some additional information from you for their personnel files – would it make sense to write “No Contract, Return to sender” on it and place the letter back into the post? It wouldn’t make any sense at all as firstly there IS a pre-existing contractual relationship, and secondly, it’s a dishonour to not respond.

Same goes for traffic infringements and the like, your artificial PERSON entity, called a DRIVER in this example is driving a state registered car with a state owned drivers license. Immediately this establishes a pre-existing contractual relationship between your PERSON entity and the State.

Thus, any communications received from State entities and their agents need to be reviewed and actioned without creating controversy or a dishonour. There are four (4) actions one can take:

  1. Agree to the Offer – An Honourable action
  2. Conditionally Accept the Offer – An Honourable action
  3. Argue the Offer – A Dishonourable action
  4. Remain Silent – A Dishonourable action

By using the “No Contract, Return to Sender” method is the same as arguing the offer, which will, in the end require a 3rd party adjudicator to make a ruling eg A summons is sent out to attend court so a 3rd party can determine if there is an existing relationship between the parties. Plus the admins fees will be piled on top, together with court fees etc.


State agencies are not necessarily bothering to take PERSONs to court, some are taking a simple approach to such matters by cancelling motor vehicle registration, suspending the drivers license or preventing one from renewing such contracts until remedy is provided. As someone in the FB group found out the hard way.

As most folks have worked out, the PERSON isn’t you, but you do have a relationship to the PERSON and so do multiple corporations and government entities….the “No Contract, Return to Sender” strategy is going to burn up your PERSONs ability to use benefits, hence there are more honourable ways to resolve the issue, at least 100,000 of them.