The old saying "a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on" could be tweaked for modern times as "an online agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on"
The old saying "a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on" could be tweaked for modern times as "an online agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on"
You're viewing a single thread.
Most kinds of agreements are enforceable if you have proof. Digital proof is still proof
I would think that a valid digital contract would involve 2 cryptographic digital signatures. Anything less than that is just a glorified, easily spoofed, text document
Cryptographic signatures are good.
But courts don't really require that. Evidence is just one side presenting things, if the other side doesn't dispute it, then they just continue court proceedings like its all valid. If it gets disputed, then if its Docusign (99% of the time its Docusign), then the court will subpoena Docusign for all information related to the document: Time of signature, Device, IP address, Email address, Phone numbers, everything. Also, there is usually other evidence to corroborate, such as text messages, phone call logs, etc, which would further prove the contracts legitimacy.
Giving an offer to purchase a house is usually done via Docusign.
However, the actual purchase agreement and closing documents are all done through actual paper and pen.
So basically, digital signatures are good enough for small enough agreements, but its not yet ready for like serious bussiness.
Digital signatures are enough to transact millions of dollars worth of cryptocurrency. It's not that they are "not ready", it's that there isn't enough surrounding infrastructure for it. If everyone was issued a digital signature key embedded into the smart chips of their ID cards and every phone and computer came with the hardware and software needed to read and sign things, paper signatures would be the ones regarded with suspicion for not being digital and not the other way around.
The technology to embed digital signatures into smart chips on cards is already used on payment cards. We're just not making full use of the technology available to us.
The ideal set-up would be that everyone's ID card comes with a smart chip containing a private key issued by the Government. Everyone has a phone app that can sign and request signatures for messages. The public keys associated with any given identity can be freely accessed on some public database.
To sign a message, the card can be tapped against an NFC reader or inserted into a chip reader. This will cause the hardware inside the card to sign the message and return a signature to the requesting device. The requesting device must send the signature to a Government server in order to timestamp the signature and verify that the person who signed is the person they claim to be. The message itself does not need to be sent, just the signature and the hash of the message.
When your card is used to sign a message, you'll get a notification through the app on your phone. Allow for some short timeframe (perhaps 24 hours) when the signer can cancel their signature without excuse, so that unauthorised signatures can be quickly caught and cancelled and the damage limited. If your card is lost or stolen, reporting it as such will revoke the corresponding key on the database and any messages purportedly signed after the revocation date will be invalid.
This set-up would also allow for 2FA to be implemented easily by using a simple PIN scheme where users configure a PIN in advance and this PIN must also be reported to the server in order for the signature to be regarded as valid.
Time for the US to bite the bullet and do that with SSN cards.
It's already being used as an ID, even if the inventor didn't intend for it to happen. Just put up a picture and a smart chip on it.The social security number can really be retired altogether. There already exists a form of national identity card in the US, and it's called the passport card. It contains all the information found on a passport except the visa pages, contained in the form of a smart card. It already has RFID capabilities. The only thing is that passport cards are not universal, but they can be if they are made free and the Government phases out social security numbers for passport card numbers in all contexts.
Not the point. Like the person you replied to said, as long as you have proof then in many jurisdictions it doesn't matter how the agreement was made.
You can create a company here with a handshake (literally).
NZ law just says it has to be adequate for the intended purpose: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0035/latest/whole.html#DLM154837
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a legal requirement for a signature other than a witness’ signature is met by means of an electronic signature if the electronic signature—
(a) adequately identifies the signatory and adequately indicates the signatory’s approval of the information to which the signature relates; and
(b) is as reliable as is appropriate given the purpose for which, and the circumstances in which, the signature is required.
(2) A legal requirement for a signature that relates to information legally required to be given to a person is met by means of an electronic signature only if that person consents to receiving the electronic signature.
Ohh how i wish the average person realised this.
But you can't have proof for digital agreements. Was I of sound mind when I accepted them? Did I accept them by accident? Was it me or somebody else on my device that accepted them? How can you prove any of this?
“No your honor, I was drunk when bought those bitcoins at the peak so I couldn’t legally enter an agreement, I want a refund”
Sure that’ll work
There are presumptions that you were of sound mind and it was you. Unsurprisingly, courts are full of weasely, pro se people who waste everybody's time because they, very much incorrectly, think that they can get out of agreements by going into court and making the brilliant, one of a kind argument of "but your honor, they can't prove that I clicked it. I was hacked/someone else must have logged in as me!" People do this all the time and they lose all the time. Modern commerce literally would not function without these presumptions.
Edit: also, fwiw, there are exceptions but generally speaking verbal agreements were and still are very much valid, whether written or not, unless the agreement fell into certain categories (e.g., sale of land). Same deal, annoying people think they can outsmart the system by just saying "but your honor, none of this was ever put to paper." They are, with important exceptions, also generally wrong.