4 ms·

... 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

... 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.
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      No, a child does not understand that owing a billion dollars means several lifetimes of debt that they will never pay. If no reasonable adult would agree to the terms but a child would, that immediately indicates that the child is not functioning as an adult and is therefore not contractually capable. Because this can pretty much be generalized to all minors, it's simply laid out in law that they are not contractually capable.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        >No, a child does not understand that owing a billion dollars means several lifetimes of debt that they will never pay. They do. They only agree because they realize it would never be enforced. Maybe a really young child wouldn't, but a preteen would know similar amounts as an 18 year old. That said, most 18 year olds don't really comprehend how much it will take to pay back their college loans and many, once they figure it out, say they wouldn't have agreed. There are also many who take out pay day loans not realizing how bad a deal it would be who would not have taken them had they understood the true costs. >Because this can pretty much be generalized to all minors There is nothing you can generalize between a 2 year old and a 16 year old that couldn't also be generalized to someone 18+.

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.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    No, a child does not understand that owing a billion dollars means several lifetimes of debt that they will never pay. If no reasonable adult would agree to the terms but a child would, that immediately indicates that the child is not functioning as an adult and is therefore not contractually capable. Because this can pretty much be generalized to all minors, it's simply laid out in law that they are not contractually capable.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >No, a child does not understand that owing a billion dollars means several lifetimes of debt that they will never pay. They do. They only agree because they realize it would never be enforced. Maybe a really young child wouldn't, but a preteen would know similar amounts as an 18 year old. That said, most 18 year olds don't really comprehend how much it will take to pay back their college loans and many, once they figure it out, say they wouldn't have agreed. There are also many who take out pay day loans not realizing how bad a deal it would be who would not have taken them had they understood the true costs. >Because this can pretty much be generalized to all minors There is nothing you can generalize between a 2 year old and a 16 year old that couldn't also be generalized to someone 18+.