[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Electronic Signature Act Of 1996
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 [email protected] wrote:
> Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > C'punks,
> >
> > At 11:11 AM 6/4/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >
> > >...I get the impression that under the common law, an ink
> > >signature is merely a demonstration that a party assented
> > >to a contract, and except for certain contracts (which
> > >usually require witnesses etc.) there is no requirement in
> > >the law that a contract even be on paper...
> >
> > The "Statute of Frauds" lists the exceptions and they cover
> > most important contracts. I seem to recall that contracts
> > over a given amount or for interests in real property for
> > periods of a year or more are covered. I'm sure someone
> > with current access to legal research resources will post
> > a better explanation.
>
> [I AM NOT A LAWYER]
>
> The following contracts are required to be in writing, in most states:
>
>
> 1. A contract of an executor or administrator to answer
> for a duty of the decedent (the executor-administrator
> provision).
>
> 2. A contract to answer for debt or default of another (the suretyship
> provision).
>
> 3. A contract made upon consideration of marriage (the marriage provision).
>
> 4. A contract for sale of goods worth more than $500 (the sales provision).
>
> 5. A contract for sale of an interest in land (the land provision).
>
> 6. A contract not preformable within a year (the one-year provision).
Exceptions and loopholes are SO numerous so as to make this list less
than worthless.
The only straightforward rules are with respect to UCC sale of goods
contracts.
> - Igor.
---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:[email protected]
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: [email protected]