Validating contracts with seal
If you're from a company with a large amount of contracts and are struggling to get the bandwidth to analyse them all, tools like this can really help.
tech columnist Farhad Manjoo argued recently that the fax machine lives on largely because of our attachment to the written signature.
By contrast, among the literate gentility, a signature was not meant to be easily discerned—an intricate and illegible signature, rather than a printed one, suggested an education in handwriting.
It's also long been accepted that paying close attention to signatures isn't a particularly good way to detect or rule out fraud.
Even those states haven’t abolished the distinction altogether have modified it sufficiently so that a seal has little lingering vitality.
In those jurisdictions that that haven’t abolished the distinction, whether or not a contract is under seal can have implications in two contexts.
First, a sealed contract is binding absent consideration, or at least creates a rebuttable presumption of consideration.
The telegram also posed a substantial challenge to existing law: The 1869 case of in New Hampshire established that an agreement made by telegram constituted a signed contract.
On the Internet we "sign" things all the time, often without realizing it.
Manjoo's observation piqued the Explainer's curiosity: When did scribbling your name on a piece of paper become a means of authentication?