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

Re:I am not a lawyer...

[cashman73]

A better analagy would be to say that since England didn't abolish trial by combat until 1815, it is still available in certain states in the US...except for that pesky "repugnant to the Constitution" bit.

Apparently, no one has told this to President George W. Bush,. . . ;-)

Re:English Common Law (and Statutes)

[Glowing Fish]

well, the common law is not quite the same as the royal law, as such!

but!

Thank you for pointing out that Canada is not a "democracy". I have gotten flamed many times on Slashdot for pointing out that a government ruled by a hereditary ruler, who also is a theocrat, is not a democracy. People seem to be offended by this, even though it is very clearly the truth.

Re:Misstatement

[Yartrebo]

Intent is not needed. Noone (or virtually noone) intends to be bound by your average EULA, yes EULAs are generally considered legal contracts.

However, intent definitely should be required. Additionally, custom written contracts should not be allowed under duress, where the monopoly granted by copyright and patent would count as duress (since the only way to meet the need is via a single seller). The seller already gets all the terms given to them by copyright. EULAs only add insult to what is already a very lousy situation.