3 ms·
Why would they be the only one ‘accepted’ in courts? For instance, when you buy a house you often have to use an escrow service to hold the down payment while t
by throwawaysea 5y ago
Why would they be the only one ‘accepted’ in courts? For instance, when you buy a house you often have to use an escrow service to hold the down payment while the exchange of ownership takes place. Often, these escrow companies are just small local outfits. They are nevertheless trusted with a certain degree of authority and accepted as a neutral facilitator of these transactions by our legal system. In the US many (all?) states license escrow agents to make this work. There should be a similar system for licensing electronic signatures either at the state or federal level. Otherwise the acceptance of one private party over the other amounts to a government-granted monopoly, which goes against how a free society should work.
- IanCal 5y ago> Why would they be the only one ‘accepted’ in courts? That's not what they said though, and while this sounds nitpicky it's vital to the point. You can choose between a well known accepted option or something else to save a few bucks. The cost of docusign is, as far as I can tell, low enough that even considering the question for long would easily cost more.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y agoI'm not claiming they're the only one accepted. But if you say DocuSign, the judge will already be familiar with it. If you say anything else, they might not. And this is not just about one jurisdiction, but also other ones, where e-signature laws may be different.