🚀 go-pugleaf

> Subj:	RE: Automatic Teller Machine Writ
> 
> I'd like to provoke discussion which would clarify the requirements for
> such a facility.
> 
> Clearly it would be some kind of court and would have to have some
> technical competence too. What more would be needed?

Ideas expressed in the "Scientific American" August article about such
things are a registration authority that certifies that X is a person
and that Y is a corporation. The registration authority would "sign"
that certification for all to use.
 
> The naive idea is that I want to get from it a declaration that `Bloogs
> Mail Order Inc., Registered Office so-and-so, did on the xth day of y
> sign message z to the plaintiff'.

And message z, along with the message's authentication information,
would be stored in plaintiff's tamper proof smart card. Plaintiff
could release said message to court for proof.
 
> If you go that far then why not add the ability to order `and is found
> liable to pay the plaintiff the sum of w'.

Since plaintiff's card is tamper proof and can either present or not
present message z therein lies the "proof". Liability would be left in
the court's jurisdiction.
 
> Can one go that far without getting involved in the whole morass of
> procedural complexity, cost, and the other negative factors of a court
> as opposed to an arbitration?
> 
> Should we try and redesign courts for contract litigation in the electronic
> age? Or is it better to rely on arbitration agreements? In the latter case
> how do you stop powerful players (such as industry groups) setting up
> arbitration processes which are against the customer's interest (such as
> the UK banking ombudsman scheme)?
> 
> Questions to the net, please, and let's get this going ...
> 
> Ross