MJ Ray: Business: Email, sigs and signing
Ian Rawlings
wrote in
an article in uk.comp.os.linux
that:
"There was a legal precedent set in the UK a little less than a year ago, in which the company's name and contact details in an email signature were taken as sufficient identification of the company for the contents of the email to be acceptable as a contract [...]"and then helpfully provided some references about it. The headline on Disclaimers could make emails into contracts [The Register] seems a bit off. Even the article ends:
"The end result of this could be that people who include a signature and disclaimer at the bottom of their emails might actually be making themselves more liable than people who just send one line emails."Note the might there. It's quite a leap, isn't it? Mehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA [2006] EWHC 813 (Ch) (07 April 2006) appears to have ruled that headers were not a sufficient signature, rather than that a plain text signature block (sig) is sufficient. Have I missed a key point here? AFAICS, the ruling contains the following key general points:
"28. I have no doubt that if a party creates and sends an electronically created document then he will be treated as having signed it to the same extent that he would in law be treated as having signed a hard copy of the same document. [...]"
"30. [...] if a party or a party's agent sending an e mail types his or her or his or her principal's name to the extent required or permitted by existing case law in the body of an e mail, then in my view that would be a sufficient signature for the purposes of Section 4. [...]"I doubt that a sig is quite the same as a hand signature, as it doesn't necessarily 'serve as a method of authentication' as required by the Digital Signature Directive ( 1999/93/EC, Electronic Signatures Regulations 2002), but there are times when it could bind one to things. Essentially, using a sig is like using headed paper, not like hand-signing. Parts of the ruling (para.19) seem to argue that automatic insertions make things carry less weight AFAICT - does that hint at how futile those forced stupid disclaimers would be if relied upon in court? Does the same automatic-or-decision point also mean that using a electronic signature tool (gpg or whatever) selectively helps it carry more weight than signing everything automatically? I don't agree it ... signs death warrant for Digital Signatures [Financial Cryptography] Interesting questions. Anyone know if the answers are decided yet?