One of the things that is funny about signatures is that the claims made about them are known to be false. For the Excerpt below is supposed to be the rules about Signatures in contracts from FindLaw.However it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a signature does not indicate that someone has read or agreed to a contract. One must match what is said to realty. Such is a claim about what is supposed to happen. The only thing that it means is that someone marked the paper or what ever it is being signed.

Think from your own experience. Have you read every word of every contract you have ever signed? Have you comprehended every word in said contract? How could you understand if you didn't comprehend every word in a contract? If the answer is yes than you are not the normal signor. This makes the following claim from FindLaw even more ludicrous than the idea that a signature actually means the signor has actually read the contract or that in reality it is the signature that is binding you. There is a saying that may get the idea across. "A contract exist when it is paid". Wouldn't that be a recognition that in truth one cannot know another s intent.  

"Also, as contracts continue  to move into paperless electronic formats, the criteria for what  constitutes a "signature" has been substantially broadened."

To me what the intent of this is to say is, that whether you read the contract or not because you signed it you are bound by that signature.

Now they are saying it doesn't matter if you signed it. At least with a wet ink signature it can be determined that you did with hand writing experts, and now they don't even need that. There is no way to know who was typing on the computer.

The same is true about the idea that your signature binds you. In truth however no one can find the bonds that bind you and this means that in truth other men are binding you and not the contract or the signature (slavery). Is it not just people taking principals that do not really have existence, but are imaginary and claiming this binds you. The real problem is you are bound merely by your intent and never by what the shifting meaning of the words on a piece of paper say. Language is not all based in reality and to be honest about it one realizes that the written language is full of problems, error's and imaginary principals. 

Mostly these error's occur from the different perspectives on what things actually mean, which is to say the different imaginary principals. There is no way to know the differences in one persons imaginary principals versus another persons.  When one shifts from the language they have knowledge of to one they have no knowledge of there really cannot be a meeting of the minds or full disclosure. Thus when you shift from the spoken English to the written legalese is there any way to know the intent of the signor's? See what FindLaw claim's about what are the rules regarding signatures in Contracts below? 

What Are the Rules Regarding Signatures in Contracts?

The signature is the most common way to indicate that you  have read and agreed to a contract, even if one's signature is so unique  and stylized as to be virtually illegible. Also, as contracts continue  to move into paperless electronic formats, the criteria for what  constitutes a "signature" has been substantially broadened. Whichever form it takes, the key importance of the signature is proof  that an offer has been considered and accepted. But are there any rules  to help determine whether a signature is valid, or even if a signature is necessary? Actually, there are a few, and this article will review some of the rules. For more information on contract law, see FindLaw's Drafting Contracts and Contract Law sections. 

Excerpt from FindLaw

There in lie's the reason for Contracts having to have full disclosure. One really cannot have full disclosure and that is the honest truth.

The only thing that makes a contract binding on you is your intent to for fill your obligations as you comprehended them at the time of the signing of the contract. If you are not competent and did not comprehend your obligation under the contract then you can get out of them. So what prevents anyone from getting out of any contract they find undesirable. Lawfully and legally nothing does. There is however your creditability as a business man. If you become known for not following through with your obligations under contracts, then after it is clear this is the case, no one will contract with you.

So really when a party to a contract defaults the other contractors must find someone else to contract with, who has creditability as a contractor. If they bring a third party into it and ask the third party to make someone follow the terms of the contract are they themselves supporting assault upon someone? If force is used in anyway, either by the original complainant or the third party they sure are. Especially if they know that the third party uses force or ever has. Is it illegal and unlawful to pay someone to shake down another person for currency? It sure is. The whole purpose of contracts is really to establish the creditability of the business men in contract, while eliminating violence as a tool in getting what you want (more on this later). Even the threat of violence at a future date by a third party invalidates a contract.

Actually calling a third party is an admission that you as a contractor are not competent nor sui juris, because you made the original decision to contract with the defaulter in the first place. Calling a third party is an attempt to get out of being responsible for that decision and it violates the none aggression principal. This happens because there is a difference between our imagination and reality, but we don't always make the distinction between reality and imagination. See it is only in your imagination that someone can claim that violence committed to follow the law is not a threat when in fact unless someone is physically threatening someone have they actually broken a law that is a arrestable offense. Such activity actually invalidates all contracts within a society, because no contract is valid made under duress.

In the below Excerpt you can see that moving to electronic signatures is really going to create more of a gap between reality and imagination as they broaden what constitutes a signature. This actually translate in my opinion to more violence and is illegal and unlawful for that logical condition alone. 

Usually, a signature is simply someone's name written in a stylized  fashion. However, that is not really necessary. All that needs to be  there is some mark that represents you. It can be -- as many signatures  end up -- a series of squiggles, a picture, or historically, even the  traditional "X" for people who couldn't read and write. As long as it  adequately records the intent of the parties involved in a contractual  agreement, it's considered a valid signature. Usually this mark is made by a pen, but not necessarily. The  signature can be made by anything that marks the paper. Pencil is not  favored because it can smudge and be erased, but a signature made with a  pencil is equally valid as a signature in pen. Signatures can also be  made with stamps or with electronic means, since these are all different  forms of writing implements. If you are unable to sign the contract yourself, you can always give  someone, called an "agent," the authority to sign on your behalf 

Excerpt from FindLaw

No one who has a lick of common sense is going to accept a Pencil signature. So the following claim "Pencil is not  favored because it can smudge and be erased, but a signature made with a  pencil is equally valid as a signature in pen." is in itself an attempt by a seeming authority to broaden what constitutes a signature. Common sense tells you that people will always try to get out of an obligation or being seen as having the intent to be obligated in the first place, if they have no honor. We should let people expose themselves as incompetent and not sui juris so as to not do business with them. It is however not an excuse to let people become violent. 

This is actually why as far as I know, no one accepts a Pencil Signature. They recognize such a practice proves they are not competent. So this " As long as it  adequately records the intent of the parties involved in a contractual  agreement, it's considered a valid signature." is a false claim, because you cannot record a persons intent. Lot's of times even if you are present for an action you can't determine what the intent was for that action. You see intent is actually a irrational idea. You can't take it form your mind and place it on the table for examination. There is no measuring it's dimension's. There is no way to take the intent of the other contractor and measure it either. That is why being competent also requires being responsible for both the good and the bad decisions. 

You can however know your intent and even if your intent wasn't exactly disclosed in the contract, make your intent happen by being honestly responsible. Thus maintaining that very necessary creditability as a contractor. This is one of the ways that we can tell the difference between a competent sui juris individual and one who is not. If your a hairsplitter most likely you wont be a competent person.  Language is not a science in that the same sentence means the same thing to all reader's. Thus even the written form is not going to grant you perfect comprehension, which also means no perfect understanding.

Remember when I wrote the following. "The whole purpose of contracts is really to establish the creditability of the business men in contract, while eliminating violence as a tool in getting what you want (more on this later)." I know that someone is even now questioning what is the creditability for the source on this claim? Well now I am extremely glad you are asking. In this case it is the reader who is the source and thus you decide if you are credible or not. What I am going to do is ask you a series of questions and based off of how you answer them you decide if I am right in my claims about the purpose of a contract. Please if  you think of a question I didn't ask, write so in comments.

1. Why would you be bothering to have law if not to eliminate violence?
   
   Doesn't this really mean or show that most everyone agrees that the purpose of law is to eliminate violence when ever possible? If not isn't the whole bases for law a fraud?
2. Why bother having a contract if the use of violence is OK? One could merely round up people and force them to work in slave labor camps if there is not a labor contract, couldn't they. 
3. What creates a stable business environment if it isn't the non aggression principal? To me this is why it is illegal and unlawful to pay third parties to force anyone to do anything. 

Why one could say that the fulfillment of one's obligations in a contract is actually a record of the creditability of the business men in question, now couldn't they. One could also realize that there is no reason to have a contract if one of its purposes is not to find ways to do business without violence, couldn't they? So my claim "The whole purpose of contracts is really to establish the creditability of the business men in contract, while eliminating violence as a tool in getting what you want (more on this later)." does fit the context of logical reason for contracts and your own common sense tells you so. Thus it is evident to me one of the real problems in society today is the automatic just believing what someone claims. One must take what is being said to them and attempt to match it to reality. No match from reality usually means it is a irrational concept which cannot really be examined. I don't know about you, but I am not subject to other peoples imagination. Are you?

All photo's are from Pixabay.com I am not responsible for if you think, how you think, what you think or do. You Are. If you like my content please consider and up vote and follow. Peace.

Play games for BTC.

---

Interested in joining or supporting the Information War? 

Use tag  #informationwar to post your own stories about the lies and propaganda being pushed on the public.

@informationwar will up vote posts worthy of the cause.  

Join the discord: https://discord.gg/JsXbzFM chat with like minded individuals like myself and share your articles to receive additional support.  

Delegating Steem Power:   Another way you can support the cause is to delegate SP to @informationwar. 

Delegate 25 SP  

Delegate 50 SP  

Delegate 100 SP Note: remember to keep around 50SP in your account so you don't run into any bandwidth problems.  

How to delegate SP, join the fan base and more:   https://steemit.com/informationwar/@truthforce/you-can-make-a-difference-join-the-informationwar-and-help-support-others-today  

Find out more about the Information War. Click Banner!