Thread

1. voidUpdate · 1790067869 · focus · HN ↗

   If a contract is automatically signed by an agent on your behalf, is it legally binding?

   1. GodelNumbering · 1790068172 · focus · HN ↗

      Not a lawyer but I can almost guarantee that the answer is yes. If it was a 'no', many malicious parties would simply start using that loophole.

      1. voidUpdate · 1790068295 · focus · HN ↗

         But if I paste an image of your signature onto a contract that says you give me a million pounds, that can't be legally binding for you, can it?

         1. entuno · 1790069120 · focus · HN ↗

            No, because you are a separate individual who does not have authority to sign a contract on my behalf.

            Claude isn't. It's a tool, that isn't capable of signing a contract any more that Adobe Acrobat or Photoshop is.

            OP used it as a tool to sign the contract. The question would be whether they did so knowingly and intentionally, if not then whether that invalidates the contract.

            1. chrisjj · 1790071488 · focus · HN ↗

               > Claude isn't. It's a tool, that isn't capable of signing a contract any more that Adobe Acrobat or Photoshop is.

               Incorrect. Claude.is far more capable. E.g. it found and applied the sig without user knowledge.

               1. entuno · 1790072927 · focus · HN ↗

                  And Adobe Acrobat is far more capable than notepad. But that doesn't change the fact that they are tools, not individuals, and thus do not have the legal authority or ability to sign contracts.

                  I could write dozen lines of bash that finds for PDFs, pastes an image into them and emails it to someone. That doesn't mean that bash can sign contracts.

                  1. Krutonium · 1790078316 · focus · HN ↗

                     I mean in this specific case, it did, at your behest even. These contracts would probably be even easier to enforce than Claude-signed ones!

                     1. entuno · 1790081995 · focus · HN ↗

                        I disagree, in the same way that I'd disagree if you said the rollerball pen on my desk signed a contract.

                        They can be used by someone to sign a contract, but they cannot sign a contract themselves because they're just tools.

                        1. chrisjj · 1790088086 · focus · HN ↗

                           Your pen cannot sign a contract can purely because it doesn't have the capability to find a contract in your email, find a signature on your HD, and place that sig in the right place on that contract. If it did, then yes it would be capable of signing a contract just like Claude did in this case.
                  2. chrisjj · 1790083107 · focus · HN ↗

                     The bot had the authority - as agent. It had the ability - as the report itself shows.

                     > I could write dozen lines of bash that finds for PDFs, pastes an image into them and emails it to someone. That doesn't mean that bash can sign contracts

                     It does mean exactly that - though bash would need to get lucky with selection and positioning.

               2. GJim · 1790073514 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Claude.is far more capable.

                  Claude isn't a legal entity. It is software.

                  OP is entirely responsible for the software they choose to use. Nobody else. If they misused that software, a court will not be sympathetic!

                  1. chrisjj · 1790083141 · focus · HN ↗

                     That's like saying a weapon is not capable of injuring.

                     Capable is capable - regardless of responsibility.

                     1. entuno · 1790084275 · focus · HN ↗

                        It's more like saying that a weapon is not capable of murdering someone.

                        No one is arguing that Claude can't stick an image onto a PDF. But that is not the same thing as signing a contract.

            2. skeledrew · 1790080490 · focus · HN ↗

               If it isn't then it opens up the wonderful loophole where anyone can do anything and say "the AI did it" if there are negative consequences, and "I did it" if positive. Whether the AI actually did it or not. Got caught putting out a hit on someone? "Oh I just complained to Claude about the person and said yes when it asked if I'd like it to 'handle the problem', nothing more". The user must be held accountable.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.