Legal Signature question?
We all know signatures are prevalent to establish identies, and most dont even use notarized signatures.
So how can you prove someone signed something.
On Judge mathis, a lady showed a contract that was signed by both parties, and then the other party said he never saw that document and didnt sign, even though his name was signed. So the judge asked for his license and compared his licenses signature to the contract and decided it didnt match so he threw out the contract!! What makes the judge a signature expert and can he legally throw a contract out like that. I guess in other words how can you prove a person signed something such as a credit card slip without spending thousands to hire an expert. Why is it we have to sign for everything
Answers:
For hundreds of years, the signature has been an important part of the evidence that a person has consented to something. Even today, it is very difficult to forge another person's signature well.
The case you mentioned with the judge: (Real) judges see hundreds of signatures every week. It does not take a rocket scientist to see if one signature is blatently different from another (as was apparently the case). If it is a better job of forgery, then it might take a handwriting expert to tell the difference.
Nevertheless, in a real court, handwriting experts from both sides, and/or a neutral expert appointed by the court, would make the determination. Furthermore, the determination would be made using extensive samples of the person's handwriting, not just an electronic imprint on a driver's license.
But when it comes down to it, you are right: it is difficult to prove that a person has signed a document if the document bears only their signature.
That is why more important documents have always required two witnesses, who will verify not only that you signed the document, but that you signed it intelligently out of your own free will.
In addition to the signature and witnesses, it has been common practice for centuries to also require a person to affix their family seal to an important document (people don't usually carry around signet rings anymore, and most states have passed laws that if you simply state you are signing the document under seal, that is sufficient).
And, of course, in addition to all this, there is the notary public who will witness the entire signing process, verify that the document is complete before signing, and then affix their own seal to the instrument, along with that of the signatory and the witnesses. In many places since the turn of the 20th century it has been common for a person to make an imprint of their right thumb in the sealing wax, thereby proving beyond any doubt that they were present.
To return to your specific question: In routine, day-to-day contracts, under common law it is not necessary that a contract even be in writing. One merely has to prove that a binding agreement existed. The signature on a written document is just one part of establishing this. The witnesses are the most important part, since they can come into court and testify that the contract was made.
Even if everybody had a microchip implanted into their arms, and you could therefore prove without any doubt that a certain person signed a document, this will never eliminate the critical importance of *witnesses* since only they can testify that the person knew what they were signing, and did so freely.
Signatures symbolize acceptance of a contract (One of the three main elements of a contract) and all the terms it carries within it. Not all contracts have to be in writing. Contract law takes an entire year of law school to learn.and sometimes people still don't completely get it.
In a real courtroom, signatures are compared by real experts. They are often called questioned documents examiners. Sometimes it is fairly obvious, like the fella that forged a check and spelled the name wrong, but other times it is a question of how hard one habitually presses on paper, or where on the line one starts, or whether the signature shows tiny hesitation marks. A judge should not be making that determination himself. Real experts require fairly extensive known examplars and wouldn't base an opinion on a drivers license.
Please don't confuse a real courtroom with some TV show like Judge Mathis.
Courtroom TV shows are set up with two parties who have already bargained away their case. It is not real. They have already agreed to not step foot into a real courtroom when they agree to appear on the show. The judge is not a real judge.
So, obviously, the "judge" can (and does) make decisions without regard to the rules of evidence and without regard to the rules and procedures that apply to us who actually work in courtrooms.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: