Britain's 400 Years of Cyber Law

corbettw writes "There's a news piece in The Register this morning about a British high court ruling about email signatures, and whether they constitute binding contracts. Apparently, the 1677 Statute of Frauds dictates what constitutes a contract, so an email with a disclaimer in the sig could qualify under the language of the statute. Since the statute predates the Constitution of the U.S., a clever lawyer could argue it applies here equally. Maybe there's some truth to the Internet joke 'take off every sig for great justice!'"

Comments

I am not a lawyer...

[endrue]

... so does this mean that laws made in Britain prior to the US Constitution are binding now in the USA? I think I am confused and I have not RTA so maybe someone could enlighten me.

- Andrew

Ahem.

[Noryungi]

On the other hand, I think email is not admissible as 'proof' in a court of law, since it is too easy to forge and email and/or muck up the sender information. So, even if an email includes a clever sig and/or statement to the effect that it is a binding contract between the sender and the recipient, it is highly possible it would be thrown out of court, as it does not constitute admissible evidence.

At least, I am almost certain that's the case in my area... Napoleonic code and all that. YMMV, IANAL, etc...