3 ms·
It's so that you can be asked "Did you sign this?" and you would be lying if you said no. And so that if someone else signs it in your name they are leaving evi
by idontwantthis 4y ago
It's so that you can be asked "Did you sign this?" and you would be lying if you said no. And so that if someone else signs it in your name they are leaving evidence of fraud.
If someone else signs for you and you say it WAS you, I don't think the signature is going to be disputed. You can always say you just decided to sign it weird for some reason.
In the opposite case, the forger is going to need to argue that you signed it weird, while you are going to say that you didn't sign it at all.
But that's how I think things are supposed to be.
I live in a strange country where signatures actually are compared by clerks and will literally reject your second signature if it doesn't look enough like the first, even when you signed both right in front of them.
- refurb 4y agoExactly. That’s why as an added layer of security signatures are witnessed. Then they ask “did you sign this?” and the witness “did they sign this?” It’s less an immediate authentication and more of a “record” of authentication that has to be validated by the person who signed.
- hansworst 4y ago> It's so that you can be asked "Did you sign this?" and you would be lying if you said no. If you agreed to something verbally, and are then asked "did you agree to this?", you would also be lying if you answered with "no".
- bmitc 4y agoThere’s usually no record of verbal “agreements”, and casual language is much more ambiguous than signing a document that literally says “I agree”.
- necovek 4y agoIndeed: most laws governing mutual obligations accept verbal contracts just like any other contract. Having them written down helps with disputes.