[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Subject signing redux (was: Re: Mary is Mary)

> From: "E. Gerck" <egerck@laser.cps.softex.br>
> -> > The argument can equally be reversed to the other side. Further, if Jon
> -> > says that Mary has auth X and auth X is to be the company's lawyer -- but
> -> > Mary is not a lawyer -- she may never be able to prove she did not agree
> -> > with auth X.
> -> > 
> -> 
> -> That's true, but will it ever be an issue?  If Mary isn't misrepresenting
> -> herself then how could this be a problem?  Could you describe a scenario
> -> in which Mary gets in trouble because Jon, without any help from Mary, 
> -> thinks she's a lawyer?
> Sure, the ABA may sue Mary because she is an authorized company lawyer --
> afterall, she has trusted Jon to sign auths for employees --  without
> being a lawyer. Further, a client may sue her because he sent her an
> urgent patent application that was left waiting and being shuffled around
> long enough for the competitor's patent to be presented first - because
> she isn't a lawyer and did not know such things are urgent. 

I hate to beat a dead horse, but this again comes down to the premise
that the verifier is central.  It's given lip service, but seems to be
forgotten every so often.

Mary = subject.
Jon = issuer.
Ed = verifier.

Ed wants to know if Mary is a lawyer.
Jon says Mary is a lawyer.  

Ed either trusts Jon or he doesn't.  If he trusts Jon, and Jon lied,
then Ed has the basis for a lawsuit against Jon, not against Mary.
Mary doesn't have to countersign anything.