Your email signature can sign a contract
Discussion
Just saw this on the register, that is quite scary all things considered and cost the vendor £25k.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/30/email_sig...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/30/email_sig...
Email is contractually binding so it only really relevant to things like property where there is specific laws around having documents signed (imo).
The defendent had it coming, but personally it's a terrible decision - signature blocks are used for contact details not intended to provide authenticity for an email. Footers provide NO authenticity, they can easily be copy and pasted. At least a genuine signature requires some skill to forge. Don't think anyone who commonly used email thinks a signature footer provides some kind of additional legal authority.
The defendent had it coming, but personally it's a terrible decision - signature blocks are used for contact details not intended to provide authenticity for an email. Footers provide NO authenticity, they can easily be copy and pasted. At least a genuine signature requires some skill to forge. Don't think anyone who commonly used email thinks a signature footer provides some kind of additional legal authority.
7.1 in the SMTP RFC starts "Email is inherently insecure", identity and authenticity are only provable by adding additional protocols to SMTP.
But that's not an issue in this case - the sender isn't denying that it was his email. If the solicitor did deny that he'd sent it, then things would get tricky.
But that's not an issue in this case - the sender isn't denying that it was his email. If the solicitor did deny that he'd sent it, then things would get tricky.
98elise said:
Surely there is nothing unusual about this?. You can form a contract verbally so any communication where you agree to anything can be legally binding.
If the sender of email isn't being disputed then there is no issue.
It's about a property/land sale which has some specific requirements and cannot be a verbal contract.If the sender of email isn't being disputed then there is no issue.
meatballs said:
98elise said:
Surely there is nothing unusual about this?. You can form a contract verbally so any communication where you agree to anything can be legally binding.
If the sender of email isn't being disputed then there is no issue.
It's about a property/land sale which has some specific requirements and cannot be a verbal contract.If the sender of email isn't being disputed then there is no issue.
One of my pet bugbears is that people use the term verbal contract when they mean oral contract.
The decision referred to above strikes me as unexceptional and according with reality. When I send someone an email I am doing the equivalent of sending them a letter.
I add that County Court decisions may guide but do not bind other Courts.
The decision referred to above strikes me as unexceptional and according with reality. When I send someone an email I am doing the equivalent of sending them a letter.
I add that County Court decisions may guide but do not bind other Courts.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 2nd October 11:32
Not surprised . .
Lawyer sends text which should be headed "Subject to ..............." and forgets to include the words. The real issue is that he offered a price his client wasn't happy with!
I have executed many agreements electronically and would object to the text of this e-mail not being treated as binding.
Lawyer sends text which should be headed "Subject to ..............." and forgets to include the words. The real issue is that he offered a price his client wasn't happy with!
I have executed many agreements electronically and would object to the text of this e-mail not being treated as binding.
meatballs said:
Email is contractually binding so it only really relevant to things like property where there is specific laws around having documents signed (imo).
The defendent had it coming, but personally it's a terrible decision - signature blocks are used for contact details not intended to provide authenticity for an email. Footers provide NO authenticity, they can easily be copy and pasted. At least a genuine signature requires some skill to forge. Don't think anyone who commonly used email thinks a signature footer provides some kind of additional legal authority.
Email provides no authenticity of anything really given how trivially it can be spoofed. Even stuff like SPF, DKIM, DMARC et al are just indicators of authenticity, but not definitive, since they aren’t universally adopted or regulated.The defendent had it coming, but personally it's a terrible decision - signature blocks are used for contact details not intended to provide authenticity for an email. Footers provide NO authenticity, they can easily be copy and pasted. At least a genuine signature requires some skill to forge. Don't think anyone who commonly used email thinks a signature footer provides some kind of additional legal authority.
Durzel said:
Email provides no authenticity of anything really given how trivially it can be spoofed. Even stuff like SPF, DKIM, DMARC et al are just indicators of authenticity, but not definitive, since they aren’t universally adopted or regulated.
We use GPG at work, but more for confidentiality/privacy than authenticity/non repudiation. The EU e-signature stuff is all cryptographic PKI too. However the EU law also let's a simple typed name count as a signature... Which is fine if you confirm that you actually did intend to sign it and it's not a fake by someone else, but I can't see how you can hold it as a signature (or an auto signature) as intent to be legally binding if the originator says they didn't intend it as such. (Reminds me of arguments over WhatsApp a few weeks back whether it was intended to be entering into a contract on those specific terms).
Although this case is probably more nuanced as basically they were obviously trying to back out of a fairly firm agreement.
Edited by meatballs on Wednesday 2nd October 15:45
PAULJ5555 said:
Could you add "Without Predudice" to the auto signature?
You appear to misunderstand what that term is for. It is mostly used in negotiations to settle a dispute and has the effect ,when accompanying a good faith offer to settle, of rendering the negotiations inadmissible in a court that is determining the dispute. In the context of an email that is agreeing to something, adding the words without prejudice would add nothing. If the author of the email does not wish to be bound by its contents he or she could say that the agreement is subject to a formal contract.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 3rd October 12:56
FAX. . . (If anyone can remember them) were cutting edge prior to sms ( short message service ( text)) which all mobiles could receive BUT not all could send which all have been taken over by text/messages ANYHOW my point is a fax ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facsimile ) was a legal binding document back in the day which people tend to forget so IMO a digital signature is equal and yes scary! Makes me feel old as had a mobile for 33 years and wow how the bills have come down from 50 pence per min on contract and the phone you had to buy upfront
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff