What is the liability of a person who signs as a witness? I've seen this answer and this answer, but the answers don't entirely explain some things. For example, long back my boss wanted my signature as a witness signature on a contract for one of his property deals. All other signatures were already on the contract, so I wasn't really a witness to the signatures. My uncle advised me that "if you were not a witness, then you don't have to sign". So I didn't. My boss however had told me that a witness has no liability, so there is no issue in signing. Is that true? For example, in this form, the witness has to mention their name in full and give their full address. In another form I've seen, the witness just has to mention their name and sign there. From this website I got: The underlying purpose of having a signature witnessed by a third party is for evidential reasons. The witness would be able to confirm that the signature on the agreement is indeed the signature of the party whose name appears. In India a contract may be effective without any signatures being witnessed, although it is always advisable to have a contract attested by witnesses. In some countries, in order to be legally enforceable, the contract may have to be signed before a notary public. As different jurisdictions have different rules, always check the position before finalising the contract. When a signature is witnessed, as well as signing, it is sensible for the witness to write their name in block capitals and insert their home address. and from this answer, which says: In India the undermentioned persons can be appointed as a Notary: a) a person who has been practicing at least for 10 years or b) a person belonging to scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes and has been practicing for at least seven years, or C) a woman who has been practicing at least for seven years as a legal practitioner or D) he has been a member of the Indian Legal Service under the Central Government or E) he has been at least for ten years - I) a member of Judicial Service or ii) held an office under the Central Government or a State Government requiring special knowledge of law after enrollment as an advocate;or iii) held an office in the department of Judge, Advocate General or in the Legal Department of the armed forces. Source: The Notaries Rules , 1956 as amended and subs by GSR 8-7-97and 5/1/2000. as amended by (Amendment)Rules, 2014. This is not an exact reproduction of the said rule but is only broadly for information. Pl. read rule 3 for details. At least the above points make sense, because a notary is a person who knows the law, has the authority to be a witness and can even give the notary stamp for a confirmation. But if a common person signs as a witness, they might not even know what they are doing and might not know what their liability is, especially if the signatures were not done in front of them. So when a person requests for a witness signature, should they in good faith, first call the witnesses and sign in front of them? If the signature was not done in front of the witness and the witness still signs, what is the liability on the part of the witness? Can any punitive action be taken on the witness (the witness might not even mention their full/correct address)? If there is no liability, then couldn't a person simply put some fake signature and name, purporting that some witness had signed it (in case the document is genuine and they see no reason why someone would actually call the witness to establish the truth)?
Signing as a witness will not generally make you liable on a contract. But, if you sign as a witness to something that you did not in fact witness, you could be liable for fraud or negligent misrepresentation is someone suffers harm as a result of you untrue statement that you witnessed the document being signed. Update: Usually you would be sued for whatever damages are caused plus pain and suffering plus punitive damages (the latter two limited in some states but not others in a variety of ways). It would probably be a crime as well if you had criminal intent, but it would be very unusual for a prosecutor to agree to prosecute an isolated case like this unless it was part of a larger criminal enterprise. A criminal sentence would usually depend on the amount of harm done and would often be a minor felony leading to a year or two in prison but states vary greatly on this.
I will not speak to your specific situation. I am unfamiliar with the jurisdiction and real estate contracts are one of the most highly regulated contracts so local statutes may override common law. In general, the terms of a contract are what the parties agree; the written document is not the contract - it is evidence of the contract. In a case where the parties agree that the written version is wrong then the written version is wrong. Where the parties disagree that the written version is wrong (or agree that it is wrong but disagree as to how) then each will need to provide evidence to support their position. A signed written contract that supports one parties position is extremely strong evidence! The other party would need to provide some overwhelming evidence to trump this. The general position that the courts take is that the written contract accurately documents the agreement unless someone can prove that it doesn't.
The requirements for a valid will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In most U.S. states there is a two part test. One part is determined based upon the face of the document, the other is based upon extrinsic evidence. Formal Requirements To be formally valid without a hearing unless an interested party requests one in most U.S. states on its face (i.e. to be a &quot;self-proving will&quot;) a will must: Be in writing. Be signed by the person making the will who is at least eighteen years of age. Be signed by at least two witnesses who do not have conflicts of interest, who are attesting that the person making the will was competent and that they saw him or her sign it. The signatures of the witnesses must be notarized. If their statements are not notarized, usually at least one witness must testify in a hearing or with a later affidavit. The language of the will must indicate an intent to make a binding disposition of property in the estate of the person making it when they die, and other rights related to their estate and their death. Various exceptions to these requirements exist in most state (e.g. a &quot;holographic will&quot; is valid if it is in writing, indicates the necessary intent, is signed, and has its material provision substantially in the hand writing of the person writing it). Some states allow oral wills called &quot;nuncupative wills&quot; in very specific circumstances usually limited to soldiers or sailors in circumstances of actual battle or imminent mayhem likely to result in death, with the proper witnesses. A will is like a dollar bill, a copy is not as good as the original document. If the original document cannot be found it is presumed that the will was revoked by physical destruction of the will, in the absence of evidence to the contrary submitted at a hearing to a judge. Extrinsic Requirements Any interested party can contest a will that appears valid on its face under the standards describe above on several grounds. Two of these relate to the condition of the person signing the will at the time it was signed. The notarized witness statements create a presumption that these two conditions were met. But, that presumption can be overcome with other evidence from witnesses and/or documents or other kinds of evidence. These conditions are: The document was procured from the person making it with duress or undue influence, even if the person making it did have &quot;testamentary capacity.&quot; The person making it lacked testamentary capacity which is also a two part test. The first part is that the person making it knows who their family and the &quot;natural objects of their bounty are&quot;, knows in general terms what they own, and knows what a will is intended to do and is capable of understanding the general outlines of what it does. This basically rules out people with severe dementia. The second part is that if the person is not suffering from dementia but is suffering from hallucinations, that the hallucinations have not influenced the nature of the provisions contained in the will. In practice, &quot;undue influence&quot; is the predominant ground for contesting wills that are formally valid on their face because testamentary capacity is a very low standard. A will can also be contested on the grounds involving extrinsic evidence that: A later validly executed document revoked the will, or The document is a forgery. If any of the issues related to extrinsic evidence are disputed, both the party contesting the will, and the party defending it, has a right to have that issue resolved in a jury trial, although often the right to a jury trial in a case like this is waived by the parties. This is determined by making a reasonable inquiry before submitting the will and examining the physical document and the place where it was when it was discovered, closely. The inquiry should be very searching if the terms of the will are surprising, and can be fairly lax if the terms of the will are what was widely expected. There is generally a notice given to all interested parties when a will is submitted to a court with probate jurisdiction to be given effect that contains a deadline to raise a contest along these lines. A will that is not submitted to a court with probate jurisdiction usually has no force or effect until that happen in most U.S. jurisdictions. Public Policy Even if the will is valid in general, some terms of the will may be invalid as a matter of public policy, or modified by statue, in certain circumstances. These exceptions can usually be determined on the face of the document or with minimal additional information (although &quot;your mileage may vary&quot; and cases where, for example, the cause of death or date of death is uncertain can be difficult). For example, the following limitations are common: A term in a will conditioning a gift at death on marrying or not marrying a particular person is void in most, if not all, U.S. states. Under certain circumstances a will is required to leave certain minimum amounts to a surviving spouse and/or minor dependent children. If a will appears to omit a child of the person making it by accident, it is modified in particular ways mandated by statute. Will provisions making gifts at death or giving responsibilities to someone who murdered the person who wrote the will are void. Some states invalidate provisions in favor of an ex-spouse upon divorce, unless a post-divorce document reaffirms those inheritances. Certain kinds of words are given defined statutory meanings unless the express language of a will says otherwise, such as &quot;by representation&quot;, or &quot;if he survives me&quot;, that are not necessarily intuitive or in line with every day use of language. It is usually necessary to review the probate court and case law in the state where the decedent was domiciled at death to determine if these limitations apply, ideally with a probate or estate administration lawyer.
It's a bit like talking to the police: anything you say might be used against you, so the conventional wisdom is to say nothing. It is a good rule of thumb. When you are paying a professional to represent you, why make things complicated by speaking on your own behalf about the same issue? As you point out, not everyone follows this rule. In some circumstances there might be benefits to discussing your case publicly, such as fundraising or deterrence. Whether the risk outweighs the benefits will depend on the details of the legal case and your role in it. Lawyers are likely to emphasise the following risks: If you are a witness whose credibility is in issue, any public statement could potentially become a prior inconsistent statement which is used against you in cross-examination. Again, one of the purposes of hiring a lawyer is to be careful about how you communicate your position on a litigious matter and reduce the risk of careless remarks having unexpected consequences. Speaking publicly undermines this goal. In Commonwealth countries, there is a significant risk that public comment on a case before the court could amount to sub judice contempt of court. Attempting to litigate the case in the media can be perceived as undermining the authority of the court. Lawyers are expected to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice and would be reluctant to condone anything that could be regarded as a contempt. This contributes to a culture where discussing active litigation is &quot;not the done thing&quot; and may itself cause problems with a witness's perceived credibility, aside from the risk of a contempt allegation. Speaking publicly about litigation is risky and the consequences are difficult to predict, which is why people often engage lawyers to do it. When the client continues to make their own statements without legal advice, it makes the lawyer's risk management job more difficult, so they are likely to advise against it.
What would you suggest I should do in this situation? Do not sign the NDA and do not get intimidated by Mr A. Instead, think about how you can prove the terms you two already agreed. Mr A is trying to override the initial agreement with one which clearly is more favorable to him. Your problem is that proving the terms of a verbal agreement is quite difficult, especially once the counterparty's/partner's attitude has worsened that much. This is why you two should have signed a contract at an earlier stage. Hopefully at least some your communications with him are in writing, since the substance of those records might support your account of the facts and therewith a fact-finder could infer the terms of the initial agreement. In those communications Mr A might have inadvertently said something that weakens or defeats his legal position. Depending on how much your friend knew about the matter, you might also want to secure an affidavit from him, any written communications you had with him in that regard, and also ask him (in writing) to preserve records of any communications he has had with Mr A from the time your friend was making the connection that led to this partnership. That being said, it is important to emphasize that these lines of action will be unavailing if you agree to Mr A's new terms.
It’s a foundation objection The basis of a foundation objection is the witness does not have first hand knowledge of the physical evidence sought to be introduced. It’s perfectly normal for the court to establish if they do or do not have such knowledge. In the linked case, the objection to the document is that it contains annotations that the witness did not make i.e. the witness did not have first hand knowledge of this annotated document. There are also some objections to parts of the document on the grounds of relevance because they deal with other people.
ontario Any party may call a witness that has relevant evidence (Rules 53.01 &amp; 53.04). There is &quot;no property in a witness&quot; (see also Unifirst Canada Ltd. c. 9766065 Canada inc., 2021 QCCQ 7946 at para. 10). The adverse party may be called as a witness unless they've already testified or counsel has undertaken to have them appear as a witness in their case (Rule 53.07).
Unless the notary personally knows the signer, the notary should, and normally will, ask for identification, and the name that the notary puts in the notarization certificate should be copied exact6ly from whatever ID is presented. For Alan Jones to sign as J7, he would need some sort of official proof, acceptable to the notary, that he is "J7". What would that be? I doubt that any notary would certify such a doccument. (If the document is signed as "Alan Jones" but the ID says "Alan J Jones" I am not sure if the notary must follow the ID or may follow the document, assuming that the notary is convinced that the two are the same person. Many notaries in practice will follow the ID.) I agree that the normal way would be for the document to say "Alan Jones, also known as 'J7'", and possibly include wording such as "I Alan Jones, am the person who posts on site XYZ.com as "J7", and specifically who posted a message starting {quote} at {timestamp}." (Or it could give the secure hash of the message, or of several messages.) This would clearly est6ablish a link between the document and the online conversations/acts that it is meant to refer to. The questions says: a need has developed for Alan Jones to sign a document using the name J7 I doubt that doing such a thing is either required or helpful. Rather I suspect he will need to sign a document in which he acknowledges being the particular "J7" involved in the matter.