4 ms·

>Meaning, don't sign legally binding contracts that you haven't read. If we required this to be an adult that the world would be full of children. Granted, I

>Meaning, don't sign legally binding contracts that you haven't read. If we required this to be an adult that the world would be full of children. Granted, I personally want this. I would like to make 'I didn't read/understand the contract' valid reason to break a contract unless the other party could prove with clear and convincing evidence you read and understood the contract... but I realize this would bring our society to a halt and would require a significant rework to fix. We live in a society that abuses consent and to swap to one that doesn't will not be an easy task.

pc86 11y ago
It's impossible to prove someone read something, and even if it wasn't it would be impossible to prove they understood it.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Mathematically prove? Yes, that would be impossible. I'm talking legally prove. >prove with clear and convincing evidence Clear and convincing evidence is a set of evidence required to reach the point. It is in-between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Mathematically speaking, no matter how much evidence you have, you can never reach a full proof that someone did some action. You might get one hundred 9's, but you will never get one 100. But legally, you don't need to. Even the highest standard of evidence does not require a 100% certainty. But I'm not even saying we go with the highest, I'm saying go with clear and convincing. (Clear and convincing is, from what I've seen, the standard needed to award punitive damages resulting from fraud in a civil case. Preponderance is needed for more exact damages. Beyond a reasonable doubt is needed for criminal prosecution for fraud.)
jdmichal 11y ago
... Your signature is exactly supposed to be the "clear and convincing evidence" that you read and agreed to the contract. Now understood it, that's a different matter entirely and is generally governed by contractual capacity, which adults by default have. I'm not even sure how you would prove contractual capacity, short of proving that they can read and understand the words on the page... Which is basically just the opposite of proving that someone is not capable due to mental illness or impairment. Considering that it's much more likely that someone is capable than not, it seems like assuming capability and proving the lack thereof is a reasonable stance.
- abraae 11y ago
  If "contractual capacity" means that you have a legally robust understanding of the meaning of all of the clauses in a contract, then I'd posit that maybe 1% of the population have that, even for common consumer contracts such as with Telcos. I'd guess that only a small minority of the population have a sound idea of what arbitration or indemnification are for example.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    "Contractual capacity" means you have the capacity to enter legally-binding contracts. It is generally understood that if you willingly enter into a contract that you agreed to the terms. Not willingly entering the contract is signing under duress and would result in a voided contract. Not understanding the terms is not a valid defense, unless you were not capable of understanding them, in which case you would be ruled contractually incapable and any contracts voided. If you were capable of understanding the terms and simply chose not to before signing, that is on you.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Your signature is exactly supposed to be the "clear and convincing evidence" that you read and agreed to the contract. And if a signature can be substituted for informed consent, well I have this crayon signature from a child promising me a billion dollars if I let them play one of my video games. The signature clearly outlines that they understood and consented to the agreement.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    Except minors don't have contractual capacity, for exactly the very reason that they can't understand what they are signing. Any contract signed by a minor can be either honored or voided by the minor at will.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >Except minors don't have contractual capacity, for exactly the very reason that they can't understand what they are signing. They can understand the simple contract far better than an adult can understand the average legal heavy contract. Any reasoning to not give contractual capacity to a minor (especially one who is able to read/write) applies just as well to the average individual.

pc86 11y ago

It's impossible to prove someone read something, and even if it wasn't it would be impossible to prove they understood it.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Mathematically prove? Yes, that would be impossible. I'm talking legally prove. >prove with clear and convincing evidence Clear and convincing evidence is a set of evidence required to reach the point. It is in-between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Mathematically speaking, no matter how much evidence you have, you can never reach a full proof that someone did some action. You might get one hundred 9's, but you will never get one 100. But legally, you don't need to. Even the highest standard of evidence does not require a 100% certainty. But I'm not even saying we go with the highest, I'm saying go with clear and convincing. (Clear and convincing is, from what I've seen, the standard needed to award punitive damages resulting from fraud in a civil case. Preponderance is needed for more exact damages. Beyond a reasonable doubt is needed for criminal prosecution for fraud.)

jdmichal 11y ago

... Your signature is exactly supposed to be the "clear and convincing evidence" that you read and agreed to the contract. Now understood it, that's a different matter entirely and is generally governed by contractual capacity, which adults by default have. I'm not even sure how you would prove contractual capacity, short of proving that they can read and understand the words on the page... Which is basically just the opposite of proving that someone is not capable due to mental illness or impairment. Considering that it's much more likely that someone is capable than not, it seems like assuming capability and proving the lack thereof is a reasonable stance.

abraae 11y ago
If "contractual capacity" means that you have a legally robust understanding of the meaning of all of the clauses in a contract, then I'd posit that maybe 1% of the population have that, even for common consumer contracts such as with Telcos. I'd guess that only a small minority of the population have a sound idea of what arbitration or indemnification are for example.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  "Contractual capacity" means you have the capacity to enter legally-binding contracts. It is generally understood that if you willingly enter into a contract that you agreed to the terms. Not willingly entering the contract is signing under duress and would result in a voided contract. Not understanding the terms is not a valid defense, unless you were not capable of understanding them, in which case you would be ruled contractually incapable and any contracts voided. If you were capable of understanding the terms and simply chose not to before signing, that is on you.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Your signature is exactly supposed to be the "clear and convincing evidence" that you read and agreed to the contract. And if a signature can be substituted for informed consent, well I have this crayon signature from a child promising me a billion dollars if I let them play one of my video games. The signature clearly outlines that they understood and consented to the agreement.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  Except minors don't have contractual capacity, for exactly the very reason that they can't understand what they are signing. Any contract signed by a minor can be either honored or voided by the minor at will.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >Except minors don't have contractual capacity, for exactly the very reason that they can't understand what they are signing. They can understand the simple contract far better than an adult can understand the average legal heavy contract. Any reasoning to not give contractual capacity to a minor (especially one who is able to read/write) applies just as well to the average individual.