3 ms·
> can't plausibly deny his signature on a contract when there are emails in evidence saying "let's get that contract signed tomorrow." Is this true? An email
by antsar 11y ago
> can't plausibly deny his signature on a contract when there are emails in evidence saying "let's get that contract signed tomorrow."
Is this true? An email showing intent to sign a contract, combined with a signature that somewhat resembles my own, is sufficient proof for a court that I actually signed that contract? That seems somewhat crazy.
- rayiner 11y agoWhy does that seem crazy? Think about it statistically: you have evidence of intent to sign a contract, and a signed contract consistent with that evidence. In what percentage of cases was the contract actually not signed? Compare that to the burden of proof in a civil case--"more likely than not."
- antsar 11y agoI guess I assumed when they say "innocent until proven guilty", "proven" implies hard evidence, not just two facts that suggest that an event occurred.
- rdtsc 11y agoYeah but "proven guilty" in a civil case is a different set of criteria than in a criminal case.
- peterwwillis 11y agoIn most cases, there is no video tape, and almost never an actually smoking gun. "Proof" is whatever sounds reasonable to a judge or jury. It's also why our justice system is flawed: we sentence people without incontrovertible evidence all the time.
- tptacek 11y agoDefendants have a presumption of innocence, but accusers do not have a burden of mathematical proof. The closest you get to "innocent until proven guilty" in US law is common law's Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, and the Latin word "probatio" does a lot more work than just "mathematical proof". There's a good 30 minute Google jag you can have about this if you go search for [legal standards of proof].
- rayiner 11y ago> The closest you get to "innocent until proven guilty" in US law is common law's Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, and the Latin word "probatio" does a lot more work than just "mathematical proof". TIL.