Signed contracts have a signature. This has been an acceptable way to ascertain authenticity of the document for a long time. Signatures are surprisingly difficult to forge.

I have developed my signature so that nobody can replicate it fluently. I also use special one off archival ink that nobody else in the world has.

Emails do not have any default mechanism like that, especially if they only rest on servers of the interested parties. Emails are just bytes and can be easily edited.

I’m curious to know your thoughts on the following counterpoints:

> I have developed my signature so that nobody can replicate it fluently.

Robots that hold and move a pen have been created to forge signatures.

> I also use special one off archival ink that nobody else in the world has.

I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not because this is absolutely hilarious, but in the event that you are, does this have any purpose? You could use this excuse to secretly “poison” a contract that you intend on breaking (by using a normal pen to sign it).

> Emails do not have any default mechanism like that, especially if they only rest on servers of the interested parties.

Gmail accounts are free and support DKIM. If both parties conduct business over Gmail, those messages have irrevocable sender authenticity. This inability to refute the contents of an email spelled disaster in the USA for the Democratic political party during their 2016 presidential campaign.

DKIM signatures are required, if you want to exchange mail with Google. Consequently just about all mailservers nowadays append DKIM signatures.

A DKIM signature attests that some subset of the headers (typically including the From: header) are "authentic". The mailserver cannot attest the authenticity of the sender; it cannot attest more than it knows, which is that the logged-in account is allowed to send mail using that sender address. It can't attest who was using the account.

DKIM is a spam-prevention scheme. It doesn't provide non-repudiability.

Signatures typically appear on printed documents. More and more often, they appear on separate signature pages, which don't include any terms or the signature of the other side. Authentication is not document integrity. Printed documents are also easily edited. Print and PDF pages are easily exchanged.

I've seen contracts where parties initialed each page. Don't ask me why. I don't think I've ever seen a contract of more than one page signed on each page.

I own several bottles of Noodler's ink. If I ever sue on a paper contract, I expect I'll be sending a scan or a photocopy into evidence.

There's nothing magical about pen and ink, new or old. We just have a longer history with it. Everything's just evidence.

Everything a Signaturen does is better done by an digital signature. It's crazy how one party signs a PDF, scans it, and sends it via mail to be signed and scanned by the other party. Legally no party then owns a signed copy because they just got send a copy of the signature which is void. Doesn't matter in court: these contracts are enforced. We have done it. In the end only the invoices really matter.

> Signatures typically appear on printed documents. More and more often, they appear on separate signature pages, which don't include any terms or the signature of the other side.

When you sign multi page document you sign every page. This is standard legal practice.

Not in the United States. Where is your experience?

I live in Poland but I am mostly working contracts outside Poland or for foreign companies.

When I receive negotiated contract for signing it is usual to expect the contract has already been at the very least initialed on every page by the other party. And I always initial every page of the contract whether the other party did it or not.

Signing every page is not required for the contract to be enforceable but is standard practice.

It's common in several European countries including Belgium and France.

And it is idiotic, of course.