On May 7, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > 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.
Yes. I was referring to the UCC, where they define the term "signature" fairly expansively as a signed name, a trade name, or pretty much any other mark. The intent to authenticate is the point, not that fact that it's a written name, signed name, or other scribble. I knew a man (a lawyer, as it happened) who always signed documents with several loops in a row. When I asked him why he didn't use a "real" signature (i.e. why he didn't sign his name), he just grinned and said "Who's to say this isn't my signature?" My own signature is sufficiently unreadable that it could safely be described as a "mark". David _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
