[LinuxBender]

Would this be equivalent to a "gentlemen's agreement"? Is that a thing in Canada? It was or is in England AFAIK. I don't think that would work in the US. It is still not clear to me how legal documents on document sharing platforms are legally enforceable when signed by clicking buttons. I would expect a public notary to show up with hard copies for me to sign and photo-copy my state ID but that is not consistent any more, or at least since Covid.

Do we need to start adding AI of text messages that detect when one may be accidentally accepting legal obligations and force the person to recite a hymn and hit their forehead with their phone in order to send a thumbs-up? ~Pie Jesu domine, dona eis requiem~

[dragonwriter]

> Would this be equivalent to a "gentlemen's agreement"? Is that a thing in Canada? It was or is in England AFAIK. I don't think that would work in the US.

No, in the US as is the case in most common law countries, as long as their is evidence supporting offer and acceptabce of an agreement with intent to be bound, consideration, etc., the form of either the agreement or the offer and acceptance of the agreement isn’t important, other than specific exceptions requiring particular form for certain kinds of contracts to be valid.

> I would expect a public notary to show up with hard copies for me to sign and photo-copy my state ID but that is not consistent any more, or at least since Covid.

The federal E-Sign Act was passed in 2000 (though COVID waa a big boost in people taking advantage of it), but that made electronic signatures valid where the law required signatures for a contract, it wasn’t necessary for the general case of contract law, where signatures on a written agreement are nice to have evidence of the content of the agreement and the offer and acceptance thereof, but not in any way required.

[btilly]

It is still not clear to me how legal documents on document sharing platforms are legally enforceable when signed by clicking buttons.

https://www.upcounsel.com/three-key-elements-of-a-binding-co... explains the basics. At its heart:

1. There must be an offer.

2. There must be evidence that it was accepted.

3. There must be consideration - each side potentially gets something of value to them.

If all of those elements exist, it is a legally binding contract under Common Law. (Unless, of course, some law says that it isn't. For example you can't be held to a contract to break the law, and verbal contracts are often not binding in real estate.)

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

[bhouston]

Yes anything type of acknowledge that is reasonable can be viewed as agreement in Canada under law but to prove it, if there is a dispute, it is best to have it in some reproducible form.

For a contract you need an exhchange of value in both directions and an agreement. It can be completely verbal and enforceable if you can prove that both parties knowingly and reasonably consented to it.

I think the requirements for consent go up as the agreement becomes more exploitive/one sided though.

[JohnFen]

> I don't think that would work in the US.

I think it would. Verbal and "casual" contracts are binding in the US. The reason it's advised not to do business that way is the difficulty in proving the contract was agreed to in court, not that such contracts aren't valid.

[LinuxBender]

I probably worded that poorly. By not working what I meant was that there are a lot of disingenuous people and we are very litigious in the US. I can't imagine verbal contracts being honored by the majority unless there are many witnesses. I mean, people dispute their actions even when caught on multiple cameras.

It's just been my experience probably based on the best practices you describe that I always had to have a notary and physical ID for anything involving significant liabilities. But even significant liabilities now seem to just be digital which seems risky to me. Perhaps Covid pushed banks into accepting those riskier liabilities.

[JohnFen]

Ah, I understand.

I have entered into verbal contracts and haven't had any real issues with them. I strongly prefer written contracts, though, because the process of hashing out a contract clarifies assumptions and misunderstandings that may not be apparent to each party until they see things put down in black and white.

The value of a contract is that it makes the terms very clear to both parties instead of relying on the other party understanding what I "obviously" meant (and vice versa).

That said, I also noticed something over the decades: I can tell the level of trust I have with a party based on how thick the contract is. If we don't trust each other, the contract will get very thick as we each try to make sure that there is no loophole the other can take advantage of.

With a high degree of trust, the contract tends to be much more brief. With a very high degree of trust, the contract can literally be a talk over coffee and a handshake.

So it all depends.

[dragonwriter]

> I can't imagine verbal contracts being honored by the majority unless there are many witnesses.

Evidence of the content and acceptance of contracts that aren’t signed writings can be hard to establish, but this very case shows that it is not impossible, especially when they aren't literally oral contracts (“verbal” just means “in words”; written contracts are verbal, but not oral, agreements.)

[TheCoelacanth]

You certainly don't need a notarized physically signed copy to have a valid contract in the US.

That makes it easier to prove you have a valid contract, but even just a verbal agreement can be an enforceable contract.

[soco]

Same in Switzerland, although of course nobody will recommend relying on verbal contacts exactly because of all too possible "you said/he said" litigation. But yeah it happens, for both smaller and bigger contracts.

[petesergeant]

and it significantly lowers the chance that the client will fuck around and claim they don’t have to pay