DIGITAL SIGNATURES AND THE INTERNET (UPDATE)
Congress
passed the “Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act” in
June 2000. The text of the law is
found at 15 United States Code (USC), Section 7001 et seq.
This “Electronic Signatures Act” became effective October 1, 2000,
but with several important provisions delayed until March 1, 2001 and June 1,
2001. See Section 7007(b) of the
Act.
The
purpose of the Electronic Signature Act is to clarify how and when electronic
records can become binding legal documents equivalent to traditional written
agreements. The opening sentence
states:
“Notwithstanding
any statute, regulation or other rule of law
… with respect to any
transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce – (1) a signature,
contract or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal
effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; and
(2) a contract relating to such transactions may not be denied legal effect,
validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic
record was used in its formation.”
Simply
stated, the Act allows electronic documents to have binding effect upon parties
to a contractual business transaction when the parties agree that such mode of
communication may be used. Separate
documentation of such agreement to be bound by e-commerce is not
required. The courts will look to
the intent of the parties in the course of the transaction and, obviously, the
text of the established electronic communications (presumably downloaded and
printed). The parties may establish
the authentication procedures, including encryption procedures that will be
required for records to establish a binding agreement.
Section
7006 provides definitions of terms used throughout the Act.
These definitions include
“Electronic
Signature” –“means an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or
logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by
a person with the intent to sign the record.”
“Electronic
Agent” – “means a computer program or an electronic or other automated
means used independently to initiate an action or respond to electronic records
or performances in whole or in part without review or action by an individual at
the time of the action or response.”
“Electronic
Record” – “means a contract or other record created, generated sent
communicated, received or stored by electronic means.”
“Record”
– “means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is
stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
Note
that information existing in an electronic form will not be deemed to be a
complying electronic record for purpose of the Act if the “sole purpose is to
enable the contract or other record to be sent, communicated or received.” Therefore, it would seem that a procedure for archiving
communications would be mandatory, in contrast to allowing email messages to
remain solely on the hard drive as “mail.”
Although
definition of “electronic” contained in the Act would appear to include
telephone communication, i.e., “relating to technology having electrical,
digital, magnetic, wireless, optical, electromagnetic, or similar
capabilities”, the Act elsewhere states that “an oral communication or a
recoding or an oral communication shall not qualify as an electronic record for
purposes of this subsection except as otherwise provided under applicable
law.” See Section 7001(c)(6).
However, the definition of electronic signatures, quoted above, includes
“sounds.”
The Act
applies to business, commercial and governmental transactions.
It applies also to many consumer transactions provided that the consumer
has expressly consented to the use of electronic communication in the
transaction with the understanding that electronic communication is not
required, the technical software mechanisms are disclosed and understood and
that this consent can be withdrawn. See
Section 7001(c), Consumer Disclosures. It does NOT apply probate and family law documents, e.g.,
will, trusts, adoptions, divorces, etc. See
Section 7003(a). The Act also
precludes the validity of electronic delivery of evictions or foreclosures
notices. Although the Act expressly
states that it is to apply to insurance, it also states that notice of life
insurance cancellation may not be delivered electronically. Section 7003(b).
Although
contract law is usually a matter of state law (broadly standardized via the
adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code by all states), the Act preempts any
provisions of state law that are in conflict.
Congress enacted the “Electronic Signatures Act” to provide a
expedited method of establishing how and when “e-commerce,” in all its
evolving forms, could be enforced by courts equivalent to the traditional
“hard copy signed contracts and purchase order.”
Prior to the enactment of the Electronic Signature Act, numerous states
had enacted individual laws attempting to govern the issue. However, the lack of uniformity was viewed as a potential
barrier to the development of commerce on the Internet.
In a
curious recognition of the traditional role of states in matters of contract
law, the Act provides that the preemption of state law is removed when the state
enacts the provisions of the Act into its own statutory code.
See Section 7002. (Texas
enacted the provisions of the Federal Act, as a matter of Texas law, effective
January 1, 2002.)
The Act
does not, however, establish any standards as to what authentication may be
required. (In this manner, the Act
establishes to an equivalent principle traditionally used in contract law, i.e.,
the contracting parties traditionally stipulate to the necessary formalities of
signature requirements, mode of communication and delivery address.
Failing to adhere to the stipulated formalities will (or should) cause
the non-complying party to lose the benefit of the agreement.)
Once it is determined that electronic communication has been agreed by
the parties as an acceptable means of binding communication, an electronic
record of the communication, e.g., email, will satisfy legal requirements for
written documentation, including signed written documentation.
Note however, if the agreement requires certain communication to be
conveyed by certified mail or courier delivery, an email message will not be
sufficient.
The
party seeking to prove the communication will still have the burden to establish
the authenticity of the communication, just as it would have the burden to
authenticate any other written record. Note
that this issue of authentication has traditionally been handled by documents
being signed, witnessed and notarized. Further,
corporate agreements may often be accompanied by a certificate of the corporate
secretary stating that the person signing on behalf of the corporation is a
properly elected officer and authorized to sign on behalf of the corporation.
Further certainty can be achieved by having the corporate secretary
furnish a certificate of good standing from the Secretary of State for the state
in which the corporation is organized.
Exactly
how a comparable level of authentication will be achieved electronically is not
clear. Section 7001(e) states that
notwithstanding the broad text of subsection (a), quoted above, if a statute or
other rule requires that a contract or other record relating to a transaction be
in writing the legal effect, validity or enforceability of an electronic record
may be denied if the electronic record is not in a form that is capable of
being retained or accurately reproduced for later reference by all parties.
Subsection 7001(g) provides that statutory requirements for notarization
of signatures, acknowledgement, verification or oaths made at the time of
signature may be satisfied if the electronic signature authorized to perform the
notarization, verification or administration of the oath “is attached to or logically
associated with the signature or record.”
(Emphasis added.) It
is clear that the rules of evidence are to apply equally to electronic records
and therefore the issues will be the same, but the manner of evidence required
to resolve the issues may be different.
Section
7001(d) provides that electronic retention of records is satisfactory “if the
electronic record of the information in the contract or other record accurately
reflects the information set forth in the contract or other record and remains accessible
to all persons who are entitled to access by statue, regulation or rule of
law for the period required” by statute, etc, “in a form that is capable of
being accurately reproduced for later reference, whether by transmission,
printing or otherwise.” Again,
archiving documents in a standard computer form, i.e., Microsoft Word, Excel,
etc., would seem to be part of the requirement. However, does one party to the transaction have to have the
records in a electronic file accessible to the other party to the contract?
A
electronic communication is deemed sent upon showing that it was properly
addressed to the recipient (preferably an address furnished for that purpose by
the recipient), transmitted in a form that can be processed, and when
transmitted for delivery to a medium outside the control of the sender.
The communication is deemed received when (i) the document is received by
the recipient’s electronic messaging system, (ii) from which the recipient can
access the record, and (iii) the message can be processed by the system.
Implementing
the statute to the technology (a technology to which most of us possess only a
superficial understanding), will likely require in the short term the
cooperation of IT System professionals to understand how transmission and
receipt of electronic records, correct use of computer media (language or
platform) and the compatibility of the media interface between sender and
recipient can be documented (electronically or otherwise) to meet the
requirements of the Act. In the
longer term, I envision that commercial software will be provided that can
record this information automatically, perhaps through means similar to ET’s
or cookies.
© David
McEwing, 2002
|