False

Is there not precedent for clicks being a signatory substitute?

electronic signatures are only valid for limited types of agreements

We learned about that when I studied law. A wet ink signature is merely EVIDENCE of consent, not consent itself. This is why electronic signatures usually have a clause to the effect of "by clicking here, you effectively consent."

Thought there was, but then the whole thing is legally grey. I know EULA is officially no longer legally binding and TOS are very similar in nature.

Outward actions give rise to inward thoughts, or something along those lines.

you are agreeing with me

Electronic signatures are valid

'evidence of consent' is correct

but that isn't BINDING

Click here to agree to this contract that gives us your mind, body, and soul : 🔲

it just creates the APPEARENCE of consent

The only time it wouldn't be binding is in the case of duress or fraud in the inducement or unconscionability or something like that

which basically describes ANY tos

there is the other caveat too; both parties must be provided a COPY of the contract for reference

an immutable copy

The court considers a signature (electronic or otherwise) to be "good enough" evidence of consent for the aforementioned reason. If you didn't really wanna do it, why'd you sign where it says "you agree"?

last time i checked, electronic contracts are not immutable

that is just the current precedence though

german officer capturing a polish jew to personally deliver them to a concentration camp

because relatively few such cases have been heard

@Marushia Dark because there's no way im reading all that garbage im not likely to fully grasp without taking a lot of time for anyway

> which basically describes ANY tos

That's a separate matter and that's more of a grey area. You could potentially argue that point that no reasonable person ACTUALLY reads the ToS, but by the same token, you ought to know with whom you deal and you still have a duty to read it. So, you're gambling with that argument.

more to the point, you could argue that clause wasn't PRESENT on the orignal version

https://tenor.com/view/facepalm-seriously-exasperated-gif-7304550

I at least skim through ToS and just about anything I sign

and because your weren't provided a copy

and they control the only MASTER copy

they can change it when and to what they wish at will

"To be able to know is the same as to know. This maxim is applied to the duty of every one to know the law." ~ Legal Maxim

without notifying the other party

relevance?

They will argue they sent you an email, which is accepted as sufficient notice by the court

negative

@Marushia Dark which is stupid

emails are almost ALWAYS inadmissible

certified mail trumps email EVERY TIME

If they had a receipt system that'd be different

Dafuq courts have you been in, MA that all this ridiculous procedure is taking place? <:thunk:462282216467333140>

"We tried, so you knew" is bullshit, regardless of what the law states