4 ms·

I’m sorry that you’re incapable of understanding the text you just pasted. It confirms everything I’ve said. > Apple preview is not sufficient in itself and ne

I’m sorry that you’re incapable of understanding the text you just pasted. It confirms everything I’ve said. > Apple preview is not sufficient in itself and needs additional evidence to support the reliability of it. The situation is not meaningfully different than with a wet signature on paper. It doesn’t matter if you sign the contract with a pen or using the preview tool, in the Netherlands you are equally bound by both. If you dispute the authenticity of the signature, the situation will not be any different between the two. And bro, work on your attitude.

dsomers 5y ago
> The situation is not meaningfully different than with a wet signature on paper. I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding the context of my original comment. Just because a wet signature could be used as evidence, does not mean you should go around spilling water on contracts, nor will any Dutch lawyer recommend you do so. I literally talked to my Dutch lawyer about this exactly situation with Apple Preview and she said no, it’s not a good practice and there’s no guarantee it will be accepted on its own. Seriously, how much legal experience so do have? You know law is not always exactly literal and has to be interpreted by real courts. I’m pretty sure you’re just some nerd on the internet that is just making a lot of nonsense assumptions about the law. Thanks, but I’ll stick with the advice of my 300 euro and hour lawyer that has practiced law for a decade rather than some know it all neck beard on an Internet forum.
- ryanlol 5y ago
  You’re utterly confused. Non-notarized paper signatures or apple preview signatures are obviously a questionable practice. They’re still legally binding, but not binding evidence. If there’s a dispute regarding the authenticity of the signature, that’ll require unnecessary litigation that would have been avoided by using a notary or an accepted cryptographic signature. (Or simply a video recording of both parties agreeing to the contract, this is really flexible) Let me quote your original comment: > I just had this conversation with my lawyer, in the Netherlands, and probably most or Europe, signing digitally is not legally binding. I’m sure this will be different for different jurisdictions. This is completely wrong, you are 100% bound by a contract you signed with Preview.app. Does that mean it’s a good practice? No. > it’s not a good practice and there’s no guarantee it will be accepted on its own. See, this is completely different from your original claim. I’m not sure why you are continuing with this bullshit, I think we both know that your original comment was incorrect.
dang 5y ago
Hey - you also broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread - can you please not do that? We'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dsomers 5y ago

> The situation is not meaningfully different than with a wet signature on paper. I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding the context of my original comment. Just because a wet signature could be used as evidence, does not mean you should go around spilling water on contracts, nor will any Dutch lawyer recommend you do so. I literally talked to my Dutch lawyer about this exactly situation with Apple Preview and she said no, it’s not a good practice and there’s no guarantee it will be accepted on its own. Seriously, how much legal experience so do have? You know law is not always exactly literal and has to be interpreted by real courts. I’m pretty sure you’re just some nerd on the internet that is just making a lot of nonsense assumptions about the law. Thanks, but I’ll stick with the advice of my 300 euro and hour lawyer that has practiced law for a decade rather than some know it all neck beard on an Internet forum.

ryanlol 5y ago
You’re utterly confused. Non-notarized paper signatures or apple preview signatures are obviously a questionable practice. They’re still legally binding, but not binding evidence. If there’s a dispute regarding the authenticity of the signature, that’ll require unnecessary litigation that would have been avoided by using a notary or an accepted cryptographic signature. (Or simply a video recording of both parties agreeing to the contract, this is really flexible) Let me quote your original comment: > I just had this conversation with my lawyer, in the Netherlands, and probably most or Europe, signing digitally is not legally binding. I’m sure this will be different for different jurisdictions. This is completely wrong, you are 100% bound by a contract you signed with Preview.app. Does that mean it’s a good practice? No. > it’s not a good practice and there’s no guarantee it will be accepted on its own. See, this is completely different from your original claim. I’m not sure why you are continuing with this bullshit, I think we both know that your original comment was incorrect.

dang 5y ago

Hey - you also broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread - can you please not do that? We'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html