Topic: Blockchain research help? (Read 136 times)
I have never heard of this, however given the most common circumstances where this may come under dispute, I would guess that this idea was a result of some one misinterpreting a corporate policy rather than an actual law. Any sufficiently good attorney can find ways to shred contractual agreements, and this sounds like one of those high stakes policies to prevent just this kind of thing. I may be wrong but this is my impression of this.
Since the Off Topic forum seems to be of little help, I'm asking this here. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I am working on a graduate thesis on blockchain utility, and I'm struggling to find a certain reference.
I remember there once being a debate as to whether or not non-impact printed documents could be considered legally binding. The philosophy at the time was that only documents or contracts printed with impact keys (such as from a typewriter) were considered legally binding, but documents printed with ink or laser jet were not considered legally binding due to the perceived ease in manipulating them at a later date.
Can someone tell me when this was, which legislation was impacted, and/or who was arguing on either side? I know I didn't just imagine that this was once a thing.
Thanks!
I am working on a graduate thesis on blockchain utility, and I'm struggling to find a certain reference.
I remember there once being a debate as to whether or not non-impact printed documents could be considered legally binding. The philosophy at the time was that only documents or contracts printed with impact keys (such as from a typewriter) were considered legally binding, but documents printed with ink or laser jet were not considered legally binding due to the perceived ease in manipulating them at a later date.
Can someone tell me when this was, which legislation was impacted, and/or who was arguing on either side? I know I didn't just imagine that this was once a thing.
Thanks!
Jump to: