đ
Can You Really Sign Things in a Legally Binding Way By Just Writing a Big X - YouTube
Channel: Today I Found Out
[3]
With
so many facets of modern life being automated,
[15]
signatures being easy to forge, and given
how difficult it is to prove based on signature
[20]
alone whether a given person actually signed
something, using a personâs exact signature
[25]
âdesignâ for verification purposes after
the fact is rapidly going the way of the Dodo.
[30]
This leads us to the question of the day-
given all this, is there any rule about what
[35]
exactly your signature has to look like?
[38]
Can you, for example, just sign all your legal
documents with a big X like they do in cartoons?
[43]
As it turns out, just like itâs possible
to cash those big novelty checks because thereâs
[48]
no rule about what a check has to look like
or be made of (just what information needs
[52]
to be included), you can, in many regions
of the world, sign a document in any way you
[60]
wish.
[61]
This is because a signature from a legal standpoint
is just proof that you considered and accepted
[66]
something.
[67]
Or to quote the U.S.â Uniform Commercial
Code §3-401(b):
[69]
A signature may be made (i) manually or by
means of a device or machine, and (ii) by
[75]
the use of any name, including a trade or
assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol
[81]
executed or adopted by a person with present
intention to authenticate a writing.
[86]
In other words, even if you sign a document
in the U.S. and many other parts of the world
[91]
with an ultra-detailed drawing of an anatomically
correct phallus, youâre still legally bound
[96]
by the terms of that document because itâs
the act of signing a document that matters,
[101]
not the signature itself.
[103]
This is why itâs possible to sign documents
using a stamp, pencil, printed signature,
[107]
digitally online or even simply by typing
your name at the end of an email message in
[111]
which you discuss and state you agree to some
deal.
[115]
In fact, there has been a long precedent of
such electronic remote agreements going all
[120]
the way back to the telegraph, such as an
1869 case Howley v. Whipple in which a U.S.
[125]
court determined that agreeing to terms in
a telegram was indeed legally binding, with
[130]
the court stating in part:
[132]
When a contract is made by telegraph⊠if
the parties authorize their agents⊠to make
[136]
a proposition on one side, and the other party
accepts it through the telegraph, that constitutes
[141]
a contract in writing under the statue of
fraudsâŠ
[144]
it makes no difference whether [the telegraph]
operator writes with a steel pen an inch long
[149]
attached to an ordinary penholder, or whether
his pen be a copper wire a thousand miles
[155]
long.
[156]
Nor does it make any difference that in one
case common record ink is used, while in the
[160]
other case a more subtle fluid, known as electricity,
performs the same office.
[165]
Granted, exact rules vary a little from region
to region and some specific institutions might
[170]
have internal rules regarding what is an acceptable
signature and what implement must be used
[174]
(such as some perhaps requiring something
be signed in blue pen or the like).
[176]
But except in very specific cases, in many
regions of the world the law of the land does
[180]
not (usually) care in the slightest about
those types of internal rules.
[185]
From a legal standpoint, having your signature
be a stamp replica of your dogâs paw print
[190]
is a perfectly acceptable way to acknowledge
you agree to the terms of a contract.
[194]
Again, the point is just to signify you agree
to the terms.
[198]
That said, because of how lax the laws are
with respect to what a signature must look
[203]
like (and how difficult it is to determine
if something was signed fraudulently even
[207]
when a typical signature is used), certain
contract types require things like witnesses
[212]
or sometimes even a notary public to attest
that they observed you signing a document
[217]
in order for the statute to be considered
legally valid.
[221]
For instance, this is generally the case with
wills or marriage contracts.
[225]
(Itâs also noteworthy that usually the witnesses
observing the signing of a will also must
[229]
not be individuals who are to be bequeathed
something in the will.)
[235]
Coming back to the issue of signing something
just using the letter X, you may have deduced
[239]
by now that this is very much something you
can usually do outside of specific cases where
[244]
a given institution may not accept such.
[246]
However, most will accept an X owing to the
fact that this has long been a common way
[252]
for illiterate individuals to sign a document.
[255]
Other methods sometimes used by those who
canât write and havenât otherwise come
[258]
up with a scribble signature also include
things like a simple drawing or in some countries
[263]
a thumbprint is common.
[265]
On this latter thumbprint âsignatureâ
style, while still not bulletproof, this certainly
[268]
beats name signatures for later verification
purposes, even for the literate.
[273]
Now, with regards to individuals who are illiterate
or otherwise canât read the language used
[278]
in a contract, you may be wondering if they
can really be legally bound by a document
[283]
that they canât even read even if they do
sign it.
[286]
It turns out, yes- from a legal standpoint
it is the duty of the signing party to discern
[291]
the terms of a contract before signing.
[294]
Ignorance about some stipulation in a contract
is not a legal way to get out of it, unless
[299]
it can be shown that the other party was deliberately
deceptive about the terms of the contract
[304]
or that the contract itself was fundamentally
different than what was expected.
[309]
However, this latter point (known as non est
factum) is often an incredibly hard thing
[315]
to prove and, again, ignorance of the contents
of the text of a contract is not a valid way
[320]
to get the contract voided.
[322]
(As you might imagine, this area of contract
law is not without controversy given an illiterate
[328]
person may not wish to reveal this fact to
anyone for various reasons including embarrassment,
[333]
fear of this fact being exploited, and in
some cases fear a deal will fall through if
[339]
their illiteracy was known.)
[341]
In any event, beyond the aforementioned misrepresentation
rules, other potential ways a signed contract
[346]
may be considered invalid in the eyes of the
law include things like if it was signed under
[350]
coercion, if it was voided before the end
of a grace period after signing (for certain
[355]
types of contracts), if a person is a minor,
or if the person is deemed mentally impaired
[361]
in some significant way.
[362]
And, note, being intoxicated or under the
influence of some voluntarily taken substance
[367]
does not usually count for getting out of
a contract unless itâs provable that the
[371]
other party used said fact to intentionally
exploit the inebriated individual.
[377]
So if pretty much anyone can legally sign
a contract in most any way they please outside
[382]
of some specific exceptions, just how ridiculous
can your signature get before someone would
[387]
notice?
[388]
Well, luckily this question was partially
answered by comedian John Hargrave who enjoys
[392]
signing checks and receipts as everyone from
Zeus to Mariah Carey without having anyone
[397]
question it.
[398]
He even for a time attempted to look as shady
as possible in his purchases, including going
[403]
on a massive shopping spree, buying a quarter
ton of chemical fertilizer (the stuff you
[407]
can use to make a bomb), and signing his receipts
with the word âStolenâ.
[411]
In the end, neither his credit card company
nor the cashiers noticed.
[416]
This is for somewhat good reason.
[418]
For a variety of reasons weâll get into
in another article later this week, a signature
[421]
is an extremely poor data point to use to
determine if a given purchase is fraudulent.
[427]
So while credit card companies do record and
otherwise store these signatures electronically,
[431]
thereâs generally little point in anyone
bothering to actually look at them.
[435]
As Mastercard executive Carolyn Balfany notes,
âaccessing them is not a regular occurrenceâ
[441]
unless the customer claims they didnât sign
for or buy something.
[445]
But even then, again, the signature is often
only a minor data point used to try to determine
[450]
if a given purchase was actually fraudulent.
[452]
This laissez-faire attitude these companies
take towards signatures today is a far cry
[456]
from several decades ago when they generally
hired huge teams of people to pore over the
[462]
signatures, comparing them to the signed cards
on file to ensure something like a check wasnât
[467]
fraudulent before approving the ultimate transfer
of money.
[470]
But in modern times, this security measure
(and in a lot of respects a physical signature
[475]
alone, even when talking more broadly about
contracts in general) is simply completely
[480]
outdated in its effectiveness to achieve the
job itâs intended to do- offer proof you
[485]
agreed to something.
[486]
In the case of credit cards, even if cashiers
bothered to check signatures at all, which
[491]
most donât, the signature does not provide
any real hurdle to credit card thieves.
[496]
(Again, weâll have more on this in an upcoming
article later this week on why credit card
[500]
companies still make you sign the back of
a credit card for said card to be considered
[503]
valid, despite this being nearly worthless
as a security measure.)
[507]
But to conclude, while certainly a given institution
may have internal requirements with regards
[513]
to your signature before theyâll accept
some bit of paperwork or the like as valid,
[517]
if youâve ever had the bright idea to sign
a different name or draw a smiling rocket
[520]
powered unicorn with machine guns for teeth
as your signature on a legally binding document
[525]
to try to get out of the thing later, donât
expect this to help you in any legal way.
[530]
At the end of the day, itâs the act of signing,
not the physical scribbles you make, that
[535]
matters from a legal standpoint.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage