What are the Responisbilities of a Witness (Witness Signature)? When signing a contract or a consent form, does the person signing as a witness have to: See that the signatory (primary person signing) has filled in any/all blank values Confirm that the signatory understands what they are agreeing to Understand themselves what the signatory is agreeing to Or is it as simple as the witness only needing to confirm that the signatory has signed, and nothing else?
The document may, but probably doesn't say what it is you are witnessing. For example, a person witnessing a statutory declaration in NSW attests: their qualification to be a witness (JP, solicitor etc.) that they actually saw the declarant sign it that they asked the declarant if they believed their declaration was true that they have known the declarant for more than 12 months OR the declarant provided a photo ID and either their face matched the photo or they had a valid reason for not showing their face. If it doesn't say then what you are witnessing is that the signature was made by a person whom you could identify if necessary (e.g. if the person denied the signature).
You would be amazed at how vanishingly few the number of cases are where a signature is disputed. Signatures are easy, quick and don't require you having inky fingers all the time. They are so useful that to throw them out to deal with infinintesimally small fractions of disputes over their veracity (bearing in mind that 99.999999999% of contracts never have a dispute that gets to a court [or at all]) is ridiculous. When it does happen, handwriting analysis is probably not going to be put into evidence anyway. Testimony like "I saw him sign it" is way more likely to be used.
The court's job is to resolve the dispute. The parties are in court specifically because there isn't agreement on what the terms of the contract were or even if there is a contract at all. If one of the parties contends that there is no contract then the court will have to determine if there is or isn't. Even if both parties agree there is a contract the court will need to satisfy itself that there is. This is a jurisdictional matter; in the absence of a contract the court can't make a ruling. Having decided there is a contract, there is something about the contract they don't agree on - if they agree then why are they in court? Each party will state their position on the dispute and provide evidence that supports that position. The court will decide based on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities which version is more correct. It is a given that the parties are in dispute about the exact terms of the contract, whether this was because of an initial misunderstanding, someone didn't read it or someone saw an opportunity to screw someone else doesn't matter. The court will decide what it thinks the parties thought (or should have thought) at the time on the basis of the evidence and the law.
If a candidate chooses to sign by simply typing their name as shown (as an example) in the first and second photos, they'd obviously have to stick to the same name and font when signing the contract and non-disclosure agreement. This assertion is incorrect. But what repercussions would it have in future? If the candidate has to sign any more company documents much later (signing physically with a pen on paper or even signing electronically), would it have to match with the signatures that were first made in the offer letter? No. Or would commonsense be accepted, that the signature is basically the candidate's acceptance of the terms of the agreement, and that the signature can vary? Yes. A signature is ritualized way of showing legal agreement. The content of the signature does not impact its legal validity. For example, it used to be commonplace for illiterate people to sign contracts, wills, and other documents prepared by someone else and read to them with an &quot;X&quot;. So long as a signature is made by the person who is supposed to be signing it with an intent to legally agree to what they are signing, it is a valid signature. When a signature is obtained in a manner that does not reflect the intent of the person signing it to legally agree to what they are actually signing, that is a special category of fraud called &quot;fraud in the factum&quot;. For example, substituting a deed to a house from a receipt for a package delivery at the last moment when the person signing it doesn't notice the switch, is &quot;fraud in the factum&quot;. A court's conclusion that there has been &quot;fraud in the factum&quot; has the legal effect of causing the document signed to be treated as if it was never signed at all. In contrast, different legal consequences are present when someone signs a document, knowing what they are signing, for reasons that rely on false statements that have been made to them, which is called &quot;fraud in the inducement.&quot; If someone tries to enforce an agreement that purports to be signed, and the person who allegedly signed it claims that the signature was forged by a third-party, inconsistency between the signature and other times that the person who allegedly signed something did so is evidence that the signature is a forgery. But it is not conclusive evidence. People's signatures change over time for a variety of reasons, sometimes dramatically in a short period of time, for example, in the case of a stroke or a hand injury. When signatures differ over time and there are allegations of forgery, then it is a question of proof for a finder of fact (i.e. a judge or jury) to decide if the alleged forgery is really a forgery. Many businesses that routinely accept small dollar value personal checks, for example, also take a thumb-print of the person signing the check in order to make it cheap and easy to litigate the question of whether a signature on a check is forged, and to discourage litigants from falsely claiming that a check was forged in the first place. This practice was established because lying and claiming that a check was forged used to be a tactic that was used on a recurring basis in civil cases and in criminal bad check passing prosecutions to escape liability.
Only in a civil case Yes, in a civil case, Alice generally can call Bob as a witness to take the stand. In many cases, this is done very early, locking in their testimony, before expert witnesses or other evidence by the plaintiff are presented to try and undermine the testimony. Alice may ask only questions that have relevance to the case. Let's take for example a dispute about a contract: Alice may ask Bob if he engaged in negotiations to form the contract, about the matter of the contract, if he signed the contract, or how he (or his employees) fulfilled (or not) the contract. Pretty much everything that pertains to the contract or the execution thereof. This does not extend to the settlement of the case or attempts thereof. Alice may not ask if Bob has an affair with Clarice unless that somehow is material to the contract at hand. Alice may not re-ask questions where an objection was sustained in the same way. However, Bob might not need to answer all questions (there are things that are banned from being asked), especially as Bob's attorney will object to questions. A few examples of competent questioning can be seen towards the end of My Cousin Vinnie, though this is a criminal trial. Never in a criminal trial In a criminal trial, not only can the prosecution not call Bob to the stand, he has to elect to go to the stand to even be questioned by the prosecution. That is because he can &quot;plead the 5th&quot;. There is a tiny exception for civil cases, where they can do so there too.
It has to be in writing To prove it exists you can point to it and say “that’s it”. Further, to be valid it must be stated on the record in court or before a Judge Pro Tem, before a court reporter, or any other mediator or settlement conference officer appointed by the court to conduct a settlement conference. They’ll have a copy of it.
As it happens, the law was just changed, effective 1/1/2017, and here are the changes. One part, section 105(1), states A power of attorney must be signed and dated by the principal, and the signature must be either acknowledged before a notary public or other individual authorized by law to take acknowledgments, or attested by two or more competent witnesses who are neither home care providers for the principal nor care providers at an adult family home or long-term care facility in which the principal resides, and who are unrelated to the principal or agent by blood, marriage, or state registered domestic partnership, by subscribing their names to the power of attorney, while in the presence of the principal and at the principal's direction or request. then 105(3) states A signature on a power of attorney is presumed to be genuine if the principal acknowledges the signature before a notary public or other individual authorized by law to take acknowledgments. That leaves open the possibility that there could be a dispute over the legitimacy of your signature if you use two witnesses. A related reason to prefer a notarized version is that it is "acknowledged" under Sec. 119 (1): For purposes of this section and section 120 of this act, "acknowledged" means purportedly verified before a notary public or other individual authorized to take acknowledgments. The reason why an "acknowledged" POA is a good thing is that there is also (new) law that gives such a POA special (good) status. Sect 119 continues: (2)A person that in good faith accepts an acknowledged power of attorney without actual knowledge that the signature is not genuine may rely upon the presumption under section 105 of this act that the signature is genuine. (3) A person that in good faith accepts an acknowledged power of attorney without actual knowledge that the power of attorney is void, invalid, or terminated, that the purported agent's authority is void, invalid, or terminated, or that the agent is exceeding or improperly exercising the agent's authority may rely upon the power of attorney as if the power of attorney were genuine, valid and still in effect, the agent's authority were genuine, valid and still in effect, and the agent had not exceeded and had properly exercised the authority. A prudent person would not hand over your stuff to a stranger or someone claiming to have power of attorney, unless they were sure that the person with a POA form actually had a legitimate POA form. They would be liable for damages if they gave away your stuff to an unauthorized person. An acknowledged POA is better than a POA with two neighbors as witnesses, because the acknowledged POA further establishes that the signature is valid. Section 120 also requires acceptance of an acknowledged POA within 7 days (whereas with neighbor signatures, further investigation may be called for, meaning delays). The existing statute is here, which is the law at the moment. There is no mention of a notary requirement, and no witness signature requirement (that changes). Section 40(1) says that "Any person acting without negligence and in good faith in reasonable reliance on a power of attorney shall not incur any liability" – now, is it negligence to accept a signature (of a principle) without investigating its validity? I really don't know. If you follow the new rules and get it notarized, that is covered. RCW 11.94.010 addresses the "what type" question, that is, whether the POA remains valid if you are incapacitated, or becomes effective once you are incapacitated. The point is that you have to say what they can do, and when they can. There is in fact a site with templates that gives you some idea what the kinds of POAs there are. I'm not vouching for the correctness of their templates.
It seems to be violating IPC §375 Having sex is only the first half of the check. The other is the enumerated list 1-7 that describes pretty much circumstances of no consent. Among them are (1) Against her will. (2) Without her consent. (3) With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt. There are two prongs here: You can argue that the consent wasn't properly given because it was given out of fear of coming injury (IPC §90), or it was given but for a fear of hurt coming from the eviction. In either case, the description demanded can be fulfilled: no-consent theory Being homeless directly leads to physical harm of the body, destruction or loss of property and reputation, and as such is an injury as defined in the IPC. As such, the threat of eviction is a threat of injury. Consent isn't present if the reason for a person to comply with a demand is fear of such an injury. As such, there is no consent as required by IPC §375 (2), and so it is rape. In the alternative, it is forced against the will, and thus violates IPC §375 (1). harm theory Being made homeless is directly harming any person in body and mind. Having obtained consent from a threat of harm to the person or close person, it is violating IPC §375 (3), and as a result is rape.