LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CMPLAW-L Archives


CMPLAW-L Archives

CMPLAW-L Archives


CMPLAW-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CMPLAW-L Home

CMPLAW-L Home

CMPLAW-L  June 1998

CMPLAW-L June 1998

Subject:

Re: Dear list members... I have a question,well two.... polite answers prefered -Reply

From:

"Maureen E. Garde" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Internet and Computer Law Association <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:20:15 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (44 lines)

Lord knows I've tried to find some.

My most recent search was unable to come up with anything
on this point. This is in connection with a project for the
New Jersey Law Revision Commission, where I work.

I have some personal theories on the subject.

For the purposes for which most electronic communications
are undertaken, the sender and receiver either "agree" that
an email message is a sufficient communication (by implication from
their continued use of the medium) or they don't, simply by not
using the medium for transactions in which a signature is important.

In other words, if you are conducting a transaction that is
sufficiently important to require a "signature" in the formal
sense (e.g., an acknowledged holographic signature) you aren't
likely to be conducting that kind of transation entirely on line. On
the other hand, if you are conducting a transaction of that
level of importance in an on line environment, chances are
you are doing so pursuant to an express agreement which settles
the issue, or by an implicit agreement.

Also, the legal standard for what constitutes a signature is pretty
low.  Any symbol used with the intent to authenticate a document.
Assuming that there are no additional requirements such as acknowledgment
or the like, an email header can satisfy that standard, IMHO. If an
electronic transaction is going to fall apart, it seems likely that
something other than the legal effect of the "signature"
on a "document" evidencing the transaction would be the cause. Thus
no cases yet.




At 11:03 AM 6/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
>A more specific question:
>
>Is anyone familiar with case law discussing the effectiveness of
>electronic signatures in jurisdictions where they are not specifically
>recognized by statute?
>
-------------------------------------------
Maureen E. Garde ([log in to unmask])

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2005
August 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
November 2001
October 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
April 2001
March 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
June 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager