I think they compared the first signature to the second and saw that they were too similar. They wanted the sequence 1. Download PDF 2. Print PDF, 3. Find pen, 4. Use pen to scribble name on paper, 5. Scan paper to PDF, 6. Upload PDF.
Without diving into too much minutiae, a legal signature can be any mark the signer intends to act as a signature. It could be a bird you've trained to poo on command onto signature lines.
In my case, this instance with Schwab was the first of a lot of similar paperwork I was going to have to do, so I pulled the ripcord when I saw how they were going to approach it.
Bunch of places want it to "look like" you've printed the page, then signed it, then scanned it. If it doesn't "look like" that, they won't accept it. Makes no sense, but I've also encountered it a bunch of times myself too.
"However, many jurisdictions still require a wet signature. For instance, in the US and Canada, notarized documents require signatures in wet ink. Similarly, documents in areas such as family law, wills, trusts, or banking also require physical signatures. In the UK, tax authorities require a wet signature for any tax documents filed by a British resident."
That's right. This requirement makes a little sense if you don't actually know the signer and could conceivably end up in court with a forensic handwriting analyst testifying whether the signature was a forgery. Anything involving notarization, for example, should pass that analysis.
But for the other 99.99% of signatures in the world, any mark at all is fine, and insisting on more is wasteful bureaucracy.
I think they compared the first signature to the second and saw that they were too similar. They wanted the sequence 1. Download PDF 2. Print PDF, 3. Find pen, 4. Use pen to scribble name on paper, 5. Scan paper to PDF, 6. Upload PDF.
Without diving into too much minutiae, a legal signature can be any mark the signer intends to act as a signature. It could be a bird you've trained to poo on command onto signature lines.
In my case, this instance with Schwab was the first of a lot of similar paperwork I was going to have to do, so I pulled the ripcord when I saw how they were going to approach it.
Bunch of places want it to "look like" you've printed the page, then signed it, then scanned it. If it doesn't "look like" that, they won't accept it. Makes no sense, but I've also encountered it a bunch of times myself too.
They're called "wet signatures"
"However, many jurisdictions still require a wet signature. For instance, in the US and Canada, notarized documents require signatures in wet ink. Similarly, documents in areas such as family law, wills, trusts, or banking also require physical signatures. In the UK, tax authorities require a wet signature for any tax documents filed by a British resident."
https://www.adobe.com/acrobat/business/resources/wet-signatu...
That's right. This requirement makes a little sense if you don't actually know the signer and could conceivably end up in court with a forensic handwriting analyst testifying whether the signature was a forgery. Anything involving notarization, for example, should pass that analysis.
But for the other 99.99% of signatures in the world, any mark at all is fine, and insisting on more is wasteful bureaucracy.