[Gllug] Switches

[Doug Winter]

On Tue 07 Jan Mark Fowler wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Doug Winter wrote:
> > Or do you require everyone to confirm everything said in email by post
> > as well?
> 
> Yes, as unless it's digitally signed then it's not really legally binding.
> This is covered in Communications Act 2000, Subsection 7(3).

IANAL etc, however i'm not sure that's true.  That particular section
merely says that:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000007.htm#7
> (3) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature
> incorporated into or associated with a particular electronic
> communication or particular electronic data is certified by any person
> if that person (whether before or after the making of the
> communication) has made a statement confirming that-
> 
> (a) the signature,
> (b) a means of producing, communicating or verifying the signature, or
> (c) a procedure applied to the signature,
> 
> is (either alone or in combination with other factors) a valid means
> of establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the
> integrity of the communication or data, or both.

Which can be summarised as "digitally signing means *signing*".  ISTR
that this was introduced so that various other bits of law that do
require a specific signature (above and beyond the normal requirements
of contract, for example the Consumer Credit Act) would be able to use a
digital signature.

As I understand my contract law, you only have to have a reasonable
expectation that someone intends to form a contract.  I don't think the
fact that an offer or acceptance is communicated by email would be
grounds for it being unreasonable.  I think you can use any form of
communication you like if, in the courts view, it would be reasonable to
believe it.

Obviously there is an issue of forgery, but at no point in this rather
ad hoc scenario has anyone claimed it wasn't them who sent the email.
If you claimed that in court then there'd have to be some investigation
to see if you really did or not.  The absence of a signature wouldn't be
enough to prove this (although wiping evidence of an email from your own
and intervening systems wouldn't be impossible, I reckon it's harder
than it looks).

d.

-- 
Ceçi n'est pas une cuillère
key 1024D/6973E2CF print 2C95 66AD 1596 37D2 41FC 609F 76C0 A4EC 6973 E2CF
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20030107/60f840d1/attachment.pgp>