3 ms·

I think you misunderstand the concept of a signature. What matters is that you agreed to something. The signature is just evidence of this agreement.

• omarhaneef 5y ago
  I accept that I misunderstood the concept, but then you don't need the "signature" at all? Just an email saying "yeah, sounds good. We agree to this." Can we just test that in court? I say this only because I can see -- IAMAL -- that there are many ways around this. "Yes, but we subsequently changed the deal when I emailed you and said 'we have to delay it," and then you said 'that's terrible. ok.'" etc
  • woah 5y ago
    > Just an email saying "yeah, sounds good. We agree to this." That is entirely sufficient to legally demonstrate agreement. An in person conversation is too, but it leaves less evidence. > I say this only because I can see -- IAMAL -- that there are many ways around this. "Yes, but we subsequently changed the deal when I emailed you and said 'we have to delay it," and then you said 'that's terrible. ok.'" etc Yep, the purpose of a signature is to have a method of indicating your agreement on the exact version of the document that is being agreed on.
• Aeolun 5y ago
  Yes, now my name is in a plaintext file. How do you prove it was me that added my name? With a physical signature you can theoretically compare it to previous signatures using pressure analysis etc, but that’s not a thing for a text string.
  • woah 5y ago
    Again, it's a matter of evidence. I guess the court would have to get to the truth of the matter, and when they did, the side that was lying would go to jail. IANAL but I'm guessing signature forgery disputes are a very small portion of all corporate lawsuits.