More and more binding rules are being developed by e-mail or online and, as usual, the law needs to evolve with the much more advanced business and retail world. The 2014 California case clearly clarifies what is needed to reach a binding agreement by electronic signature in California. This legislation will evolve, so be sure to review all new legislative changes before you base it on this particular case. The parties attempted to resolve the dispute. Counsel for Mr. Rabic and JBB sent an e-mail settlement offer to Mr. Fair asking Mr. Fair to issue a judgment of $350,000. The e-mail billing offer stated: “We need a YES or NO to this proposal; You have to say, “I accept” . . . . Let me know what you`ve decided.
Counsel for the applicants e-mailed a claim to one of the defendants. The accused, who received the e-mail, responded several times and agreed to the terms of the transaction. As a result of this email exchange, counsel for the applicants distributed a formal transaction agreement written to all parties regarding the physical signature. Ms. Rees then challenged the validity of the transaction agreement and Mr. and Mr. Neocleous sought the order of the special benefit. The parties were involved in litigation. In order to settle the dispute, it was proposed that the applicants purchase (for an agreed sum) the area benefiting from the so-called right of priority. A settlement agreement has been reached between counsel for the parties. Counsel for the defendant outlined the terms of the transaction agreement in an e-mail (including the price, the property to be transferred and the obligation to use the best possible effort to be concluded as soon as possible). The original e-mail and acceptance was “open” and not designated as “contract meetings” or by any other means.
The following emails were marked as such. The name and details of the accused`s lawyer appeared at the end of the e-mail. Counsel for the applicants subsequently confirmed his agreement. Similarly, the complainant`s name and details appeared at the end of his e-mail. Hero: The judge found that the automatic generation of the lawyer`s name and contact information at the foot of the e-mail chain, which outlines the terms of the transaction contract, constituted a legal signature. The case included a priority right to reach a small berth on Lake Windermere. To resolve a dispute over the actual existence of the right of priority, Mr. and Mrs. Neocleous agreed to purchase Ms. Rees` land for $175,000. Since this was an interest in the land, the agreement was to comply with Section 2 of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989. This meant that they had to be written, include all explicit terms and be signed by or for each of the parties.
When the dispute turned to a hearing, the lawyers tried to find a solution through the exchange of emails. These resulted in a message from Ms. Rees` lawyer, which ended with “Thank you very much” and an automatic opt-out of e-mail.