this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
127 points (97.7% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
3684 readers
234 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Stop saying 'wet signature ', jesus christ
Tell me about your moist fringe
This is the first I've ever heard of the phrase. I... what does it even mean, or what do they think that it means?
probably a physical signature with ink
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.
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.
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.
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?
That makes more sense.
These people must really hate modern technology then.
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?
TBH I think "dry signature" might be even worse
But the worst is between those two.
Moist signature.
When the other party says receipts are proof of debt it sounds just as silly.
Imagine if creditors could take anyone to court just by showing a receipt.
The thing is you have to sign a credit card application. So in this case the creditor should have been able to show the person signed for this debt via " wet signature"
The fact that they didn't is their fuck up. Receipts aren't contracts.
There's no way bank of America doesn't have the original papers he signed. The guys either making up that they couldn't provide it as evidence, or he's calling that application a receipt.
I'll bet it's actually an e-signature thing, which is part of why he's so hung up on the wet signature part
Part of signing up for a credit card is agreeing to terms of service, utilizing the card is tacit proof that you have already negotiated a contract.
Which is why the lawyer was attempting to get him to admit that he is the one utilizing the card.