Re: Electronic Signature Act Of 1996
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C'punks, At 11:11 AM 6/4/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
...I get the impression that under the common law, an ink signature is merely a demonstration that a party assented to a contract, and except for certain contracts (which usually require witnesses etc.) there is no requirement in the law that a contract even be on paper...
The "Statute of Frauds" lists the exceptions and they cover most important contracts. I seem to recall that contracts over a given amount or for interests in real property for periods of a year or more are covered. I'm sure someone with current access to legal research resources will post a better explanation. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
C'punks,
At 11:11 AM 6/4/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
...I get the impression that under the common law, an ink signature is merely a demonstration that a party assented to a contract, and except for certain contracts (which usually require witnesses etc.) there is no requirement in the law that a contract even be on paper...
The "Statute of Frauds" lists the exceptions and they cover most important contracts. I seem to recall that contracts over a given amount or for interests in real property for periods of a year or more are covered. I'm sure someone with current access to legal research resources will post a better explanation.
[I AM NOT A LAWYER] The following contracts are required to be in writing, in most states: 1. A contract of an executor or administrator to answer for a duty of the decedent (the executor-administrator provision). 2. A contract to answer for debt or default of another (the suretyship provision). 3. A contract made upon consideration of marriage (the marriage provision). 4. A contract for sale of goods worth more than $500 (the sales provision). 5. A contract for sale of an interest in land (the land provision). 6. A contract not preformable within a year (the one-year provision). - Igor.
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
C'punks,
At 11:11 AM 6/4/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
...I get the impression that under the common law, an ink signature is merely a demonstration that a party assented to a contract, and except for certain contracts (which usually require witnesses etc.) there is no requirement in the law that a contract even be on paper...
The "Statute of Frauds" lists the exceptions and they cover most important contracts. I seem to recall that contracts over a given amount or for interests in real property for periods of a year or more are covered. I'm sure someone with current access to legal research resources will post a better explanation.
[I AM NOT A LAWYER]
The following contracts are required to be in writing, in most states:
1. A contract of an executor or administrator to answer for a duty of the decedent (the executor-administrator provision).
2. A contract to answer for debt or default of another (the suretyship provision).
3. A contract made upon consideration of marriage (the marriage provision).
4. A contract for sale of goods worth more than $500 (the sales provision).
5. A contract for sale of an interest in land (the land provision).
6. A contract not preformable within a year (the one-year provision).
Exceptions and loopholes are SO numerous so as to make this list less than worthless. The only straightforward rules are with respect to UCC sale of goods contracts.
- Igor.
--- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C'punks,
At 11:11 AM 6/4/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
...I get the impression that under the common law, an ink signature is merely a demonstration that a party assented to a contract, and except for certain contracts (which usually require witnesses etc.) there is no requirement in the law that a contract even be on paper...
The "Statute of Frauds" lists the exceptions and they cover most important contracts. I seem to recall that contracts over a given amount or for interests in real property for periods of a year or more are covered. I'm sure someone with current access to legal research resources will post a better explanation.
Section 2-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficent to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party aginst whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. [...] (3) A contract which does not satisify the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable: (a) If the goods are to be specially manufactured for the buyer and are not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller's business and the seller, before notice of repudiation is received and under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the goods are for the buyer, has made either a substantial beginning of their manufacture or commitments for their procurement; or (b) If the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testomony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made, but the contract is not enforceable under this provision beyond a qualtity of goods admitted; or (c) With respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted (See section 2-606). *end Note: This only applies to the sale of GOODS. Not all states follow the UCC exactly. Note also that the term "good" is a term of art which has a complex and non-intuative meaning. Is it a sale of goods? (If yes, has the forum adopted the UCC? If no, then is there a state Statute of Frauds to look to?) If it's not a sale of goods, well, then you have piles of contracts reading to do. In short: While it is safest to provide for contracts larger then $500 in writing, there are many ways that contracts can be formed for millions of dollars without a drop of ink or scrap of paper. (Promisory Estoppel comes to mind).
S a n d y
--- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com
participants (3)
-
Black Unicorn -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
Sandy Sandfort