Hm project looks good but there are some major things to clear up before any investment should be made, especially the question asked on page 8.
Does any/all courts actually consider digital blockchain "signature" of contract as valid, if so i would asume that court would need special IT consultant to confirm that, just like the courts have medical and economic consultants to confirm certain things that are too specific for judge to get grasp on quickly. Becouse of contract or signature is not recognized such project would lose most of value since contracts cannot be forced by law in court. This is something developers should straight on either prove by strong example or at least some proper explanations.
hello Janpec1000,
thank you for your question.
I totaly agree with your view on things. On the first stage of the Notary Platform we will enable a digital signature provided to contract (and media) by blockchain. This signature is legal binding. Please check the following link:
http://blog.pandadoc.com/do-esignatures-have-a-legal-leg-to-stand-on
"In 27 countries -- including China, the United States, Russia, Australia, Canada and those in the European Union -- electronic signature is legally binding."
Like you said, when the court does not understand the meaning behind blockchain the IT (blockchain) expert will be called for an explanation. With the explanation the contracts are considered as proof in front of court.
A good article that gives another view on the blockchain and the court of law is seen here:
http://www.lawpracticetoday.org/article/lawyers-blockchain/
and here:
http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/01/blockchain-lawyers-101-part-2/
But this are only use cases for the first stage of the Notary Platform. When we get to the later stages the contracts/proof will be more advanced and a lot more tech awareness from the court will be needed. Sooner or later they must and will adapt to the technology.
I hope you have got your answer. If not, just write a follow-up 
saso
Thanks for answer. Okay so first thing is cleared up signatures are a go since they are legally binding, that is most important obstracle to clear up.
The only thing that stays in a bit of mist is once this smart contracts really do hit the court what happens how does the procedure goes, the thing that is questionable to me is how will IT consultants be hired/implemented, it will take time i know that judging from the way current consulting for medicine and all the exams doctor has to go trough to apply, and its quite detailed process which probably took quite some time to be shaped by ministry for justice or whichever institutution did it. Now on brighter side blockchain situations are nearly completly objective and straight forward and especially for notary they dont include complex process which makes me think that whole IT consultant process of seting it up might be quite faster and quicker in real use. Signature of blockchain can be quickly confirmed and its nearly straight to go answer and then for law process to continue. But that is all once the whole process is done and set up and i have no doubt that in 10 years we will see this being completly functional, but from investment perspective into this project obviously majority really dont care for such large time horizon.
So in the end it matters what happens when first contracts will start to hit the courts will courts be able to solve problem quickly with somehow quickly hiring some IT consultant (similar the way its done for translations in courts), its important to forsee whethere there could be any serious potential nonfunctionalities there becouse if they are for investors in such project could be disaster as with no doubt market would be sucked out of such cryptocurrency.
Not trying to be doom viewer at all just to be clear, its just important in investing to be as strategic as possible to forsee any forward weaknesses.
