On 05/07/2011 09:50 PM, David Shaw wrote: > Incidentally, speaking of bitmap signatures - a "signature" made via > a rubber stamp of a signature can be binding under certain > circumstances as well (at least in the US - I don't know about > elsewhere).
Within the U.S., the standard doesn't involve signatures /qua/ signatures. It involves making a mark on a document to express your will. A contract signed with a simple mark of "X" is still legally binding. There's some hoary old story that was, once upon a time, taught in law schools: but Dad went through law school fifty years ago, so maybe it's fallen out of fashion. It involved a lawsuit brought against a bank by two farmers (in Vermont, I think). The first farmer owed the second a quantity of money, so the farmer picked up a grease pen and wrote on a pumpkin, "Pay this man $10 from my checking account." The second farmer took it to the bank. The bank refused to honor the check. The two Vermont farmers were too stubborn to budge: it was a valid legal document and no rich banker was going to tell them otherwise. The bank refused to budge: if a *pumpkin* can become a valid check-writing instrument, what will that do to their bookkeeping process? The trial court ruled in favor of the farmers. (Warning: secondhand information passed on from a source recalling a story he heard fifty years ago. I'm led to believe the legal principles involved are still accurate in today's legal climate, but time and memory may have made this story a bit apocryphal.) _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
