There also seems to be confusion about what the Statute of Frauds is in the first place. There are comments elsewhere that explain what a contract is, so I'll leave that alone except to say you can have a contract which is not in writing. However, in certain circumstances, the contract is not enforceable UNLESS it is in writing. Sales is one example (and the reason it was relevant here); there are about half a dozen others. And while the 1677 S/F is apparently still in force in Britain, it does NOT apply here for one very simple reason - every jurisdiction in the U.S. has its own, which would of course apply instead.
However, all of this is probably besides the point - even assuming an email ultimately becomes a contract, there will be no S/F problem because email is written communication. So no need to prove whether it's "in writing", because, well, Q.E.D. As was stated elsewhere, the only (slim) context in which the S/F comes up is to see whether the writing was "signed". So the precedent set by the case in the article is that an email address in the header is not enough. I say, "Well, DUH" to that.
Slashdot Mirror
There also seems to be confusion about what the Statute of Frauds is in the first place. There are comments elsewhere that explain what a contract is, so I'll leave that alone except to say you can have a contract which is not in writing. However, in certain circumstances, the contract is not enforceable UNLESS it is in writing. Sales is one example (and the reason it was relevant here); there are about half a dozen others. And while the 1677 S/F is apparently still in force in Britain, it does NOT apply here for one very simple reason - every jurisdiction in the U.S. has its own, which would of course apply instead.
However, all of this is probably besides the point - even assuming an email ultimately becomes a contract, there will be no S/F problem because email is written communication. So no need to prove whether it's "in writing", because, well, Q.E.D. As was stated elsewhere, the only (slim) context in which the S/F comes up is to see whether the writing was "signed". So the precedent set by the case in the article is that an email address in the header is not enough. I say, "Well, DUH" to that.
This is my first ever /. post, so flame away.