Email, a Legally Binding Contract?
slashrot writes "Boston.com has a story on a dispute between a home buyer and seller in which they agreed on terms in a series of email messages. Superior court judge Ernest B. Murphy decided that even though these messages only contain typewritten names instead of signatures, they still constitute a binding contract. It's said to be a first in Massachusetts." The particulary look to me like a home seller trying to weasel
out of a deal, but the ramifications of the decision are substantial. This is
really worth a read.
I wonder why there is even a discussion over it. A contract never needs a signature, every time you buy a quarterpounder at McD you make a contract. Even multi-million-dollar transactions at the NYSE are made without handwritten signatures. As long as it is clear who the two negotiators are there is no doubt that two declarations of intention are made.
Exactly what I was about to say. Note that Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2 only applies to contracts for the sale of goods (not land), but most of the principles in the UCC reflect the common law. In particular, from section 1-201:
.
(38) "Signed" includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.
. .
(45) "Written" or "writing" includes printing, typewriting, or any other intentional reduction to tangible form.
Doesn't mean the guy's going to win, just that it's not going to be thrown out on the grounds that the contract isn't contained in a "signed writing".
It states:
Certain seems to be satified here.Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)