This does not seem right. I have never operated on an agreement that is not countersigned but I can't imagine that this can be a legal strategy. You could literally promise anything in a contract & then not sign your end. I don't see that happening. When a MCA contract is signed, it is rarely countersigned & sent back to the merchant. If there is a legal issue, then the funder is going to sign it & then submit it to the lawyer. I really doubt that funders are submitting future purchase agreements, without them signing them, to the courts.

When you control the money (Funder & Commission), you control the conversation. If there is not a countersigned agreement, then what governs the relationship? Nothing. Who benefits from this? The one that controls the money.