You know I was saying that in the context of gp asking if it’s legal to sign in Apple preview which is essentially appending a picture of your signature to a pdf with no guarantee from a third party if it’s you that signed it.
I don’t know, maybe English is not your native language, in that case, you’re mistake is understandable.
You will have a bad time if you sign a contract using apple preview and then try to argue that you’re not bound by that contract.
> For documents signed with a non-qualified electronic signature (e-signature), the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that the signature must be ‘sufficiently reliable’ for the document to be classified as binding evidence. If the documents are not classified as binding evidence, additional evidence may be required to demonstrate the authenticity of the e- signature.
Apple preview is not sufficient in itself and needs additional evidence to support the reliability of it. I never said that it could not be used as evidence, but it’s not sufficient in itself.
Again bro, reading skills, work on them.
> Apple preview is not sufficient in itself and needs additional evidence to support the reliability of it.
The situation is not meaningfully different than with a wet signature on paper.
It doesn’t matter if you sign the contract with a pen or using the preview tool, in the Netherlands you are equally bound by both. If you dispute the authenticity of the signature, the situation will not be any different between the two.
And bro, work on your attitude.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.