Contracts should bind the Customer Company Name not the Individual

[mcds-pa-p]

The contracts feature seems great except there's a major issue -- contracts are worded so they bind the individual not the company. It doesn't pull the company name from the customer record, it pulls the first and last name.

This makes no sense. If I was a supplier to Square and was working with John Doe there, the contract would be between my company and Square, not between my company and John Doe, with no reference to Square.

The header (where the name, address, and phone number are shown) and intro of the contract are not editable and need to be flexible to include company name instead of the first/last name:

This contract is between My Company Name (the "Business") and John Doe (the "Client") dated 08/19/2025.

In my case of Square, it should read:

This contract is between My Company Name (the "Business") and Square Inc. (the "Client") dated 08/19/2025.

[Stacelyn24]

Hey there 👋

You make such a solid point—most business-to-business contracts should bind the company, not the individual contact. Having the Square contract tool automatically default to first/last name only can definitely cause issues (and even look legally messy in some industries).

Right now, you’re correct: the header and intro fields aren’t editable—so there’s no way to swap in the company name from the customer profile instead of the individual’s name. The only workaround at the moment is to manually type the company name into the contract body itself (not great, I know).

This is 100% feedback worth submitting through the Square Feedback form (Dashboard → Settings → Feedback). The more businesses that highlight this, the more likely it’ll get prioritized for contracts 2.0. Having a toggle like “Use Company Name instead of Individual Name” would solve exactly what you’re describing.

I think a lot of folks here would welcome this change—it would make Square contracts far more flexible and professional when dealing with corporate clients. 🙌