Maybe it's because progress is faster, but I see a growing divergence between the physical world and the legal world. I've seen some post-Occupy hearings in which police brutality that had been proven beyond a doubt by video from multiple camera angles was deemed to "not count".
The law doesn't pretend that signatures and fax machines are magic. Contracts written on bar napkins can be enforced.
Any time you introduce evidence, you have to establish its credibility. The first time a signing system like this is used it's likely to take the court some time to understand, but there's no legal doctrine forbidding it.
Comments
I doubt it. If I have to fax something for it to be a legal document, such an antiquated system will ignore any advances made around it.
Maybe it's because progress is faster, but I see a growing divergence between the physical world and the legal world. I've seen some post-Occupy hearings in which police brutality that had been proven beyond a doubt by video from multiple camera angles was deemed to "not count".
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/the-true-ans...
The law doesn't pretend that signatures and fax machines are magic. Contracts written on bar napkins can be enforced.
Any time you introduce evidence, you have to establish its credibility. The first time a signing system like this is used it's likely to take the court some time to understand, but there's no legal doctrine forbidding it.
Source: I am a (not practicing anymore) lawyer.