• @Dkarma
    link
    -61 year ago

    In order to be taken to court they have to prove you’re in breach of contract.

    That’s just how things work.

    The person is saying show me where I signed the contract you’re suing over.

    This is all very standard in corp / contract law.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      That’s not what the guy is asking for when he says wet signature. He wants them to produce a document with actual fresh wet ink on it. If it’s not fresh wet ink then to him it’s not valid.

      That’s my understanding of that spell.

      • @rockstarmode
        link
        131 year ago

        I’m under the impression that wet signature means the original signed contract, not a copy or facsimile. Basically this person is saying “Prove that you and I have a contract by producing the actual piece of paper that I signed.”

        One of the reasons lots of legal documents were originally signed in blue ink was because it would be easy to tell if you were looking at a black and white copy. Obviously this is less relevant recently.

        • @meathorse
          link
          51 year ago

          Everytime I see this argument, I have the same thought:

          If he demands something he knows doesn’t exist, why did he accept the money?

          Further, if they accept his fairy tale premise of an ink signature does that mean the SovCit committed fraud to obtain the loan?

      • @thesporkeffect
        link
        51 year ago

        I’d love to know where these kinds of sovcit lore come from - is this a whole-cloth invention or is there some real legal document that mentions a wet signature?