dean on Nostr: Depends on the value lent. As it stands it’s already up to the courts, and varies ...

Depends on the value lent. As it stands it’s already up to the courts, and varies by jurisdiction. You can’t sign a loan for a house without a notary involved somewhere along the way, for instance — no lender would take that risk. But for some reason a retailer can extend thousands of dollars in credit with not so much as a copy of drivers license.

This happened to my mother several years back (via Kohls) — and it took loads of time and money to prove otherwise. Kohls couldn’t provide a shred of documentation that she was the borrower, yet as far as the world was concerned, she was on the hook until she could prove otherwise. This required subpoenas for surveillance video, among other things. And she was very fortunate (the lead investigator was her nephew) — most people aren’t likely to get that level of attention.

I still can’t understand why the courts allow this to carry on, yet they require notarization for some of the most mundane things.

I’m not suggesting every small loan needs the added expense of a notary to be valid. But depending on value, the lender should require an increasing amount of corroboration of your identity — with receipts.

Ideally this would be clearly defined, either by code or through case law. I’m not holding my breath for the former. But with how obviously useless these pseudo-credentials have become, perhaps there’s still hope for the latter?