I read the UCC quite a bit during my business law classes. Years later and I testified as an expert in a criminal case and while waiting for a procedural hearing, some nutter starts going off to the judge about how his signature on some court paperwork doesn’t count and starts citing sections from the UCC. Being criminal court, the judge and attorneys didn’t recognize the references and lectured the guy about wasting time. Later I told one of the attorneys he was quoting the UCC, which has absolutely no bearing on criminal proceedings. We had a laugh, good times.
This one sovcit group I’m in is called Secured Party Creditors. They are the ones who are obsessed with the UCC. I’m still not quite sure what kind of meth they use.
It’s funny because under the UCC a signature is defined more or less as “any mark made with intent to authenticate.” You can literally wipe your ass with a contract and it’s as good as your signature if you do it with the intent to authenticate the document. An X, thumb print, squiggly line, all good signstures. Even if someone else makes the mark for you, if you intended them to do it to authenticate on your behalf, it’s as good as your own signature.
This may not be true and something like a will or a service contract, because those fall outside the UCC, which only applies to the sale of goods and securities.
I read the UCC quite a bit during my business law classes. Years later and I testified as an expert in a criminal case and while waiting for a procedural hearing, some nutter starts going off to the judge about how his signature on some court paperwork doesn’t count and starts citing sections from the UCC. Being criminal court, the judge and attorneys didn’t recognize the references and lectured the guy about wasting time. Later I told one of the attorneys he was quoting the UCC, which has absolutely no bearing on criminal proceedings. We had a laugh, good times.
Google gets these folks into so much trouble.
This one sovcit group I’m in is called Secured Party Creditors. They are the ones who are obsessed with the UCC. I’m still not quite sure what kind of meth they use.
It’s funny because under the UCC a signature is defined more or less as “any mark made with intent to authenticate.” You can literally wipe your ass with a contract and it’s as good as your signature if you do it with the intent to authenticate the document. An X, thumb print, squiggly line, all good signstures. Even if someone else makes the mark for you, if you intended them to do it to authenticate on your behalf, it’s as good as your own signature.
This may not be true and something like a will or a service contract, because those fall outside the UCC, which only applies to the sale of goods and securities.