Witnessing a signature

[Lobster]

Having recently had to get someone to witness my signature on a legal
document - what is the purpose of having a witness?

(A 'Devil's advocate' question to stimulate discussion!)

--
David

[Paul Rudin]

It makes it harder for you to dispute that it's your signature on a
document with any credibility.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA2FCEFA4692CFd...@81.171.92.236...

It is a deed. A typical example would be a covenant on house purchase, where
there is no consideration to keep the covenant.

[Paul Rudin]

Although note that having a witness is not the only requirement for a
document to be a deed. See s1 LP(MP)A 1989.

<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/1>

Therefore it is possible for a document to be witnessed without it being
a deed. It's rather common for commercial contracts to be witnessed
notwithstanding that they are not deeds.

[steve robinson]

Its a 'statement' that you are the person who signed the document

--

[Percy Picacity]

That raises an interesting question. I have no doubt that a witness is
stating that they saw the document being signed. Are they also
attesting that the person signing it was the person whose name and
address appears on the document? Or does this depend on the document
in question?

One hears of both wills and marriages being witnessed, ad hoc, by
complete strangers - does this create any legal problems?

--

Percy Picacity

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Percy Picacity" wrote in message news:7ctfnn....@news.alt.net...

The witness is not saying any more than that he saw the signature being
applied. He does not need to know the party and is not expected to read the
document. It is both a rudimentary security measure and the introduction of
some solemnity to distinguish a formal legal document from any other
document. In case of any future doubt, you need to go and find the witness
and get them to give evidence of the circumstances.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[steve robinson]

No because in both cases prior identification is sought.

--

[R. Mark Clayton]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0j01m5...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

Well obviously for a wedding, but I the parents of a friend of mine were
[civilly] married in 1947 and two witnesses were brought in off the street.

Not so for a will. My late father's final will was witnessed by two care
assistants. Probably they knew him, but they could have been just temps
working there that day.

>
> --
>

[Robin]

> Having recently had to get someone to witness my signature on a legal
> document - what is the purpose of having a witness?
>

That depends on the document but usually to reduce the risk for later
arguments about validity (and often also required by statute with that
in mind).

Eg:

a. with a will the 2 witnesses help deal with potential challenges -
eg that the will is a forgery or that the person signing was under
duress.

b. with a deed the witness is to assist in verifying the signature if
questions arise later.

But no answre can be certain without knowing the precise nature of your
document .

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[steve robinson]

In both cases though if required they could varify the identities of
the persons present.




--

[Judith]

Yes of course it is - but the question is why?

There are many legal documents where you do *not* have to have a witness
signature - so why for some?

[Judith]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:40:09 -0000, "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

>The witness is not saying any more than that he saw the signature being
>applied. He does not need to know the party and is not expected to read the
>document. It is both a rudimentary security measure and the introduction of
>some solemnity to distinguish a formal legal document from any other
>document. In case of any future doubt, you need to go and find the witness
>and get them to give evidence of the circumstances.

It sounds like some archaic procedure where only certain people were trusted to
witness something.

Just like getting a fine upstanding police officer to witness a passport
application.

Does it serve any real purpose whatsoever?

[Lobster]

On 27 Mar 2014, "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> grunted:

>> "Percy Picacity" wrote in message
>> news:7ctfnn....@news.alt.net...
>>
>> On 2014-03-27 08:56:15 +0000, steve robinson said:
>>
>> > Lobster wrote:
>> >
>> >> Having recently had to get someone to witness my signature on a
>> >> legal document - what is the purpose of having a witness?
>> >>
>> >> (A 'Devil's advocate' question to stimulate discussion!)
>> >
>> > Its a 'statement' that you are the person who signed the document
>>
>> That raises an interesting question. I have no doubt that a witness
>> is stating that they saw the document being signed. Are they also
>> attesting that the person signing it was the person whose name and
>> address appears on the document? Or does this depend on the document
>> in question?

Thanks for the responses.

But what prevents someone (let's say me, to make the grammar easier!) from
signing a document binding me to some commitment, and instead of getting a
witness, I just make one up - ie, I sign a fake name/address? Then, some
time later, I fraudulently claim that I never signed the document;
whereupon the third party calls upon the witness to verify it, and oops, he
doesn't exist?

I refuse to honour the agreement, and claim that both my own signature and
that of the witness were clearly faked.

What's to stop that scenario from happening?

> the introduction of some solemnity to distinguish a formal legal
> document from any other document.

Interesting you should say that. As an aside - not related to my query -
I'm a residential landlord and routinely issue 6-month assured shorthold
tenancy agreements to my tenants, which both parties sign. There's no
legal requirement for witnesses to these; however I personally do insist on
it, purely to drum it in to the tenant that what they are signing is an
Important Legal Documemt, which has repercussions! (Not one has yet
queried why no witness to the landlord's signature is needed! :) )

--
David

[Paul Rudin]

Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> writes:


> But what prevents someone (let's say me, to make the grammar easier!) from
> signing a document binding me to some commitment, and instead of getting a
> witness, I just make one up - ie, I sign a fake name/address? Then, some
> time later, I fraudulently claim that I never signed the document;
> whereupon the third party calls upon the witness to verify it, and oops, he
> doesn't exist?
>
> I refuse to honour the agreement, and claim that both my own signature and
> that of the witness were clearly faked.
>
> What's to stop that scenario from happening?

Of course it could happen, and then it would be up to the person wishing
to rely on the agreement to show that you made it. Such evidence need
not be limited to your signature and the evidence of the witness. There
might be other evidence that you entered into the agreement (for example
your subsequent conduct).

Note that in the ordinary course of things there no is need for
contracts to be made in writing or to be signed. You are just as much
bound by your oral agreement. The difficulty is in evidencing that the
agreement was made (and its precise terms) if this is disputed.

There are certain kinds of agreements that must be in writing in order
to be enforceable, and some that can only be effected by a deed.

In the circumstance described it may that you're also liable to criminal
proceedings for fraud.

Sometimes people insist on being present when a document is signed and
witnessed, and ask for proof of i.d. both from the person making the
agreement and the witness.

[steve robinson]

Judith wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:56:15 +0000, "steve robinson"
> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Lobster wrote:
> >
> >> Having recently had to get someone to witness my signature on a
> legal >> document - what is the purpose of having a witness?
> >>
> >> (A 'Devil's advocate' question to stimulate discussion!)
> >
> > Its a 'statement' that you are the person who signed the document
>
>
> Yes of course it is - but the question is why?
>

> There are many legal documents where you do not have to have a witness

> signature - so why for some?

Depends upon the nature of the document and the type of transaction or
contract your entering into.


A will for instance your asking people to perform tasks upon your
behalf so its needs some form of validation both as to your identity
and that such has been made freely and your not incapable of doing
such.

It also needs to be able to stand up to a challenge being witnessed
gives a greater level of protection


Entering into a contract for supply of goods wouldnt need such because
both parties would be able to identfy each other.

Often its done more from a oint of tradition or custom because in
years gone by people couldnt read or write they would just put a mark,
this would need to be validated to stop any dodgy dealings.

--

[R. Mark Clayton]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message

news:xn0j01xv...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

No - in hte former case the registrar will / should have done that.

In the latter case I would doubt if a dispute over the validity of the will
occurred several years later and by that time the [late] testator had been
cremated...

>
>
>
>
> --
>

[Pelican]

"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:XnsA2FE50A325FC6d...@81.171.92.222...

Nothing very much. It is relatively easy to manufacture a fraudulent
document. It's quite possible that many documents come into existence the
way you describe. It might be a criminal offence, of course.

[Robin]

> But what prevents someone (let's say me, to make the grammar easier!)
> from signing a document binding me to some commitment, and instead of
> getting a witness, I just make one up - ie, I sign a fake
> name/address? Then, some time later, I fraudulently claim that I
> never signed the document; whereupon the third party calls upon the
> witness to verify it, and oops, he doesn't exist?
>

Well one possibility is that the court (or adjudicator or mediator or
ombusman or whoever) finds no trace of the alleged witness, asks you for
assistance, does not find your "it was a bloke from Bulgaira I met in
the pub" persuasive and concludes on the balance of probabilities that
the document is not reliable. (Hence the custom of witnesses adding
their address and occupation after their signature.)

A generic (but no doubt still incomplete) answer is that the witness to
your signature should where possible be chosen by the person who has
most interest in proving the document. So eg if it's your will you
should choose people you trust and who are likely to outlive you; if
it's a finance arrangement for an Aston Martin then the dealer should
choose the witness - and of course keep copies of your proof of ID -
passport, utility bill , etc And independent witnesses are to be
preferred to reduce the risk of their independence being questioned.

[Martin Bonner]

On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:50:07 AM UTC, steve robinson wrote:
> A will for instance you're asking people to perform tasks upon your
> behalf so it needs some form of validation both as to your identity
> and that such has been made freely and you're not incapable of doing
> such.

Except that there is no requirement that the witnesses either know
your identity, or have any skills in judging competency.

> It also needs to be able to stand up to a challenge being witnessed
> gives a greater level of protection

Of course, if you suspect your will is likely to to be challenged, you
might well choose to select witnesses who can give evidence to your
identity and competency.

[Pelican]

"Martin Bonner" <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:487ba087-8fb2-4e60...@googlegroups.com...

Or, as one alternative, move the ownership of your assets off-shore to an
appropriate jurisdiction.

[Martin Bonner]

On Friday, March 28, 2014 10:42:25 AM UTC, Robin wrote:
> Lobster wrote

> > But what prevents someone (let's say me, to make the grammar easier!)
> > from signing a document binding me to some commitment, and instead of
> > getting a witness, I just make one up - ie, I sign a fake
> > name/address? Then, some time later, I fraudulently claim that I
> > never signed the document; whereupon the third party calls upon the
> > witness to verify it, and oops, he doesn't exist?
>
> Well one possibility is that the court (or adjudicator or mediator or
> ombusman or whoever) finds no trace of the alleged witness, asks you for
> assistance, does not find your "it was a bloke from Bulgaira I met in
> the pub" persuasive and concludes on the balance of probabilities that
> the document is not reliable.

But that's exactly what Lobster wanted to achieve (*). The court has
been tricked into disregarding the document when it is actually valid,
and the other party to the contract has been defrauded.

*: In his hypothetical example of course.

[steve robinson]

Martin Bonner wrote:

> On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:50:07 AM UTC, steve robinson wrote:
> > A will for instance you're asking people to perform tasks upon your
> > behalf so it needs some form of validation both as to your identity
> > and that such has been made freely and you're not incapable of doing
> > such.
>
> Except that there is no requirement that the witnesses either know
> your identity, or have any skills in judging competency.

The point is that they can identify you and can confirm your the person
who signed the documentation and thats all that would be required if
asked

>
> > It also needs to be able to stand up to a challenge being witnessed
> > gives a greater level of protection
>
> Of course, if you suspect your will is likely to to be challenged, you
> might well choose to select witnesses who can give evidence to your
> identity and competency.

--

[Sara Merriman]

In article <xn0j036z...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, steve

robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

> Martin Bonner wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:50:07 AM UTC, steve robinson wrote:
> > > A will for instance you're asking people to perform tasks upon your
> > > behalf so it needs some form of validation both as to your identity
> > > and that such has been made freely and you're not incapable of doing
> > > such.
> >
> > Except that there is no requirement that the witnesses either know
> > your identity, or have any skills in judging competency.
>
> The point is that they can identify you and can confirm your the person
> who signed the documentation and thats all that would be required if
> asked
> >

Can they though? If someone was pulled in off the street to witness a
signature at a wedding, what chance is there that they will remember
what the signatory looked like after a few months? All they can really
say is that they saw *someone* sign a document.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Martin Bonner" wrote in message
> news:9f2c01d6-b5c5-4841...@googlegroups.com...

The legal analysis would be that a person proffering a document to which he
is a party impliedly warrants that is is duly executed by him, and he is
therefore estopped from denying its validity.

[Robin]

> But that's exactly what Lobster wanted to achieve (*). The court has
> been tricked into disregarding the document when it is actually valid,
> and the other party to the contract has been defrauded.
>

Ahem, yes. Apologies for my senior moment.

But it did at least demonstrate my point that the party who wishes to
rely on the signature should choose the witness. My subconscious was
perhaps at work; but I doubt it.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Robin" wrote in message news:lh42u1$5ff$1...@dont-email.me...

> > But that's exactly what Lobster wanted to achieve (*). The court has
> > been tricked into disregarding the document when it is actually valid,
> > and the other party to the contract has been defrauded.
> >
> Ahem, yes. Apologies for my senior moment.
>
> But it did at least demonstrate my point that the party who wishes to rely
> on the signature should choose the witness. My subconscious was perhaps
> at work; but I doubt it.
>

I don't think i have come across any case in 30 years in which the witness
was called upon to verify a doubtful document, so it isn't a huge issue, and
I've stopped asking for witnesses except where they are legally required.
These days most legal documents get copied or scanned almost immediately,
and the copies are the best proof of the validity of the original.

[Robin]

> I don't think i have come across any case in 30 years in which the
> witness was called upon to verify a doubtful document, so it isn't a
> huge issue,

Useful calibration, thanks. (The only cases instances I think I can
recall - from a much narrower base - involved wills and (IIRC) deeds
where there were suspicions they had been backdated so the witness was
more a suspect.)

> and I've stopped asking for witnesses except where they
> are legally required. These days most legal documents get copied or
> scanned almost immediately, and the copies are the best proof of the
> validity of the original.

JOOI can you or others point me to anything on the use of electronic
signatures in practice where a witness's signature is required? I don't
know much if anything after the ECA 2000 which I think applies to them
as to others apart from the Law Commission finding in 2001 (to their
surprise) that all-electronic wills (with electronic witnesses'
signatures) might satisfy the Wills Act. And having drawn a blank on a
quick search I am too lazy ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h not sure where to look.

[Pelican]

"Sara Merriman" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:280320141502113665%sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk...

> In article <xn0j036z...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, steve
> robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Martin Bonner wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:50:07 AM UTC, steve robinson wrote:
>> > > A will for instance you're asking people to perform tasks upon your
>> > > behalf so it needs some form of validation both as to your identity
>> > > and that such has been made freely and you're not incapable of doing
>> > > such.
>> >
>> > Except that there is no requirement that the witnesses either know
>> > your identity, or have any skills in judging competency.
>>
>> The point is that they can identify you and can confirm your the person
>> who signed the documentation and thats all that would be required if
>> asked
>> >
> Can they though? If someone was pulled in off the street to witness a
> signature at a wedding, what chance is there that they will remember
> what the signatory looked like after a few months? All they can really
> say is that they saw *someone* sign a document.

In the absence of any indication that things are not as they purport to be,
the presumption of regularity applies.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"Pelican" <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
> "Sara Merriman" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote

>> steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> The point is that they can identify you and can confirm your
>>> the person who signed the documentation and thats all that
>>> would be required if asked
>>> >
>> Can they though? If someone was pulled in off the street to
>> witness a signature at a wedding, what chance is there that
>> they will remember what the signatory looked like after a few
>> months? All they can really say is that they saw *someone* sign
>> a document.
>
> In the absence of any indication that things are not as they
> purport to be, the presumption of regularity applies.

That and that the witness may be able to identify his own signature
if he can't identify the person whose signature he witnessed.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Robin" wrote in message news:lh4j5b$9de$1...@dont-email.me...

I have never come across proper electronic signatures being used - they are
not understood, and the need for matching technology at both parties makes
them largely impractical. They may be used in trading systems of other flows
of regular transactions within a closed group of parties.

What does now happen all the time is reliance on a scanned copy of the
signature sent by email. Even then I think the case law is often
misunderstood by lawyers.

[Robin]

> I have never come across proper electronic signatures being used -
> they are not understood, and the need for matching technology at both
> parties makes them largely impractical. They may be used in trading
> systems of other flows of regular transactions within a closed group
> of parties.
> What does now happen all the time is reliance on a scanned copy of the
> signature sent by email. Even then I think the case law is often
> misunderstood by lawyers.

Thanks.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:

> I have never come across proper electronic signatures being used
> - they are not understood, and the need for matching technology
> at both parties makes them largely impractical. They may be used
> in trading systems of other flows of regular transactions within
> a closed group of parties.
>
> What does now happen all the time is reliance on a scanned copy
> of the signature sent by email. Even then I think the case law
> is often misunderstood by lawyers.

Here in the US electronic signatures are used all the time for real
estate transaction (though not the final deeds). A company called
Docu-sign claims to do this, and it is accepted, throughout the
world.

It claims to be very secure, though I'm not so certain. I had to
sign some documents under a Power of Attorney for a client who was
out of the country. All I had to do to verify my "signature" was
to respond to an email that Docu-Sign sent to me.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com