EMAIL Statute of Frauds Enforcability - Posted by Paul Hwang

Posted by John Merchant on February 15, 2007 at 13:04:09:

Every UETA statute I’ve seen is a little bit different so you’d need to read your version to see what exactly it says.

Ideally,(maybe, depends on whether you like the UETA version or not) all states would adopt the Unfirom Law Commissioners’ version, but this rarely happens as every legislature likes parts and dislikes other parts so changes the UETA version slightly.

These UETA statutes, as far as I can recall, state that in the absence of some agreement, in writing, to the contrary, ANY agreement between 2 parties that’s either by email or fax IS as binding as though it had been signed, in ink, by both parties.

To quickly find your state’s version, find your statutes then find “electronic signatures” and you’ll be reading it directly from your state legislature’s website.

EMAIL Statute of Frauds Enforcability - Posted by Paul Hwang

Posted by Paul Hwang on December 18, 2005 at 03:00:02:

In the sale of real property in CA, must emails satisfy the signature portion of the Statute of Frauds in order to be enforceable?

i.e.:

Party A emails “I will buy your House for $1.”

Party B emails back “OK.”

There are no electronic signatures or any other marks meant to be signatures in the email.

Would this be an enforceable real estate contract?

Is there any authority I can point to?

UETA - Posted by John Merchant

Posted by John Merchant on December 19, 2005 at 09:37:22:

Most states have by now enacted some version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, to the effect that a contract by email or fax is as good as, and equivalent of, a signed written contract.

Therefore, if the contract was in, or by person in one of those states, no actual writen signature would be required to form an enforceable contract…and the email agreement would be enforceable.

See the Article on this site,in Articles, on this very topic… as it goes into more detail on this subject.

Re: UETA - Posted by Paul Hwang

Posted by Paul Hwang on December 19, 2005 at 09:57:35:

Yes I realize that email can satisfy the written part of SoF. In my example, My question is if there is no typed name or other mark meant to be a signature at the end of the email must this email satisfy the signature requirement of the SoF in order to be an enforceable contract? Even if the statute of frauds “has fallen into disfavor” (1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Contracts, § 261, p. 259), [FN5] we may not treat it as if it does not exist. Will courts stick to a mechanical interpertation of the SoF regarding the signature requirement?

Yours Truely,

Paul Hwang

Per UETA, NO signature required - Posted by John Merchant

Posted by John Merchant on December 20, 2005 at 04:30:06:

Find your UETA statute and read it.

One of prime purposes of UETA legislation was to eliminate signature requirement in email & fax communications, and presumption is that only the authorized email account holder or fax number owner is the person involved, without further proof being required.

Re: Per UETA, NO signature required - Posted by Paul Hwang

Posted by Paul Hwang on December 20, 2005 at 09:35:19:

I respectfully submit both parties must agree in advance as to what the electronic signature is to be.

Re: Per UETA, NO signature required - Posted by Bob

Posted by Bob on December 23, 2005 at 03:32:03:

Ideally, both parties PGP-sign and hash the electronic offer and acceptance.