3 ms·

The purpose of the signature is to create an artifact that demonstrates the signatory’s acceptance. In a legal proceeding, the artifact can be produced as evide

The purpose of the signature is to create an artifact that demonstrates the signatory’s acceptance. In a legal proceeding, the artifact can be produced as evidence. That is the purpose of all contract signatures. If you have a contract that obliges something from me, and it’s not my signature, you may be attempting fraud on me. See bankers and robo-signing. That is why I need to see, on your copy, my signature and any other personalizing marks that my original document contains.

monkeycantype 6y ago
A dispute as to whether or not a person signed a contract will be difficult to resolve regardless of whether the document was signed on paper or glass. I don't think this is the problem that these services solve. Their purpose is to replicate the ritual of signing a document, to draw on the meaning of that tradition, so that that reasonable parties to an agreement understand there is a clear threshold that signifies the transition from negotiation to agreement, and all parties have a common version of the details of that agreement.
- quantified 6y ago
  Agreed that the purpose of the services is to replicate the ritual, with higher speed and lower cost. That’s separate from the specific aspect of what a signature is to convey. That all parties have a common version is exactly the point of the signature aspect. The idea of signing with ink is to have a personalized mark. Of course, with these services, the generic “signature” lacks the personalization. The fact that many an agreement is pushed on the signer to be signed without reading it indicates that the mark is the important thing. If pen-like inputs were more common, it would be easier to use one’s own mark. Of course, signatures are easier to fake in the all-digital realm too if you have a specimen you can copy-paste from. Always keep a paper copy in case of disputes.
quietbritishjim 6y ago
> The purpose of the signature is to create an artifact that demonstrates the signatory’s acceptance. This sentence is correct but subtly conflates two elements, essentially contained in the respective words "signatory’s" and "acceptance": * It proves the signatory's identity i.e. it was this person that agreed to the contract rather than some other person. * It proves actual agreement i.e. this wasn't just a draft contract that we were still in the process of negotiating, but the final contract we had settled on. If it came to court and the first one, identity, was in dispute then a signature is fairly unlikely to resolve that, at least on its own. But if the second point was in dispute "yeah I know I said that but it was conditional on blah blah other thing" then a signature on a contract makes that much harder to argue. The second one is very similar to what the parent comment said: the fact the signatory went through the ritual shows that they understood they were actually agreeing to precisely those conditions.
- quantified 6y ago
  Agreed on the role in a good-faith process: “this is the thing we all signed off on”. Our loop is around whether or not we can establish who the “we” was. The original commenter was making a statement about the purpose of a signature and I was stating a disagreement with that purpose. At very best, we need to recognize multiple purposes. But since contracts all come down to what is supported by a court of law, it needs to be the right signature. If you’re saying the presence of a signature is all that is necessary, it’s perfectly fine for you to create a contract in which I pay you money and assign some mark that says I agreed to it. But you better be a decent forger then. Some of the ritual elements are in place to protect against bad faith.

monkeycantype 6y ago

A dispute as to whether or not a person signed a contract will be difficult to resolve regardless of whether the document was signed on paper or glass. I don't think this is the problem that these services solve. Their purpose is to replicate the ritual of signing a document, to draw on the meaning of that tradition, so that that reasonable parties to an agreement understand there is a clear threshold that signifies the transition from negotiation to agreement, and all parties have a common version of the details of that agreement.

quantified 6y ago
Agreed that the purpose of the services is to replicate the ritual, with higher speed and lower cost. That’s separate from the specific aspect of what a signature is to convey. That all parties have a common version is exactly the point of the signature aspect. The idea of signing with ink is to have a personalized mark. Of course, with these services, the generic “signature” lacks the personalization. The fact that many an agreement is pushed on the signer to be signed without reading it indicates that the mark is the important thing. If pen-like inputs were more common, it would be easier to use one’s own mark. Of course, signatures are easier to fake in the all-digital realm too if you have a specimen you can copy-paste from. Always keep a paper copy in case of disputes.

quietbritishjim 6y ago

> The purpose of the signature is to create an artifact that demonstrates the signatory’s acceptance. This sentence is correct but subtly conflates two elements, essentially contained in the respective words "signatory’s" and "acceptance": * It proves the signatory's identity i.e. it was this person that agreed to the contract rather than some other person. * It proves actual agreement i.e. this wasn't just a draft contract that we were still in the process of negotiating, but the final contract we had settled on. If it came to court and the first one, identity, was in dispute then a signature is fairly unlikely to resolve that, at least on its own. But if the second point was in dispute "yeah I know I said that but it was conditional on blah blah other thing" then a signature on a contract makes that much harder to argue. The second one is very similar to what the parent comment said: the fact the signatory went through the ritual shows that they understood they were actually agreeing to precisely those conditions.

quantified 6y ago
Agreed on the role in a good-faith process: “this is the thing we all signed off on”. Our loop is around whether or not we can establish who the “we” was. The original commenter was making a statement about the purpose of a signature and I was stating a disagreement with that purpose. At very best, we need to recognize multiple purposes. But since contracts all come down to what is supported by a court of law, it needs to be the right signature. If you’re saying the presence of a signature is all that is necessary, it’s perfectly fine for you to create a contract in which I pay you money and assign some mark that says I agreed to it. But you better be a decent forger then. Some of the ritual elements are in place to protect against bad faith.