[Humble Abode]

Will a faxed signature be binding? Should I not be letting my customers fax the cotracts, with their signatures, back to me?

Or for that matter will a xeroxed copy of a contract hold up in court, or must the signature be an original?

 

[Spectatorz]

Fax Contracts

I think that a signature on a contract that is fax'ed shows intent to proceed.
When we send a proposal or a contract by this method or an e-mail attachment, if the customer agrees to the terms, signs and sends it back, then I send a copy to them by mail signed by us for their records and one for them to send back to us signed by them.
It works out.

 

[Humble Abode]

So you're saying always try to have an original signature for legal purposes?

 

[Spectatorz]

So you're saying always try to have an original signature for legal purposes?

It is a good idea. Dealing with transmittals, how do you know who is sending them ?
The customer also must send a payment (signed check) to close the deal. Just cover your bases.

 

[Teetorbilt]

The law was changed about 2 yrs. ago. Faxed and other electronically transmitted signatures are as legally binding as an original.

 

[Humble Abode]

The law was changed about 2 yrs. ago. Faxed and other electronically transmitted signatures are as legally binding as an original.

Is that naitionwide or in Florida? I would hate to have to learn this lesson the hard way, as a lot of our business lately has been through e-mail (which I can't sign) and fax which is just a photo copy of a signature. If I fax a estimate to the customer I always sign it.

I think to be on the safe side I will present a new contract to the customer on the first day of the job when I recieve there "down payment."

Thanks again for the input guys.

 

[Teetorbilt]

It's national and possibly international. There is so much business done electronically today that they had to do something.

http://www.wendytech.com/articlesesignature.htm

 

[Humble Abode]

It's national and possibly international. There is so much business done electronically today that they had to do something.

http://www.wendytech.com/articlesesignature.htm

Yea it makes sense to me. I just wanted to double check. Thanks for the link.

 

[Mike Finley]

You guys do realize that the article on digital signatures you are referring to has nothing to do with email right? Digitial signatures are about e-commerce sites, they involve two keys, one to encode one to decode to verify who you are? The are sold by Verisign and Entrust corp, and have nothing to do with emailing clients.

 

[Grumpy]

I've had customers scan my signed contract and e-mail it to me as an attachment.

 

[Teetorbilt]

Mike, I would argue that it does.
In paragraph 4 it says." E-SIGN defines 'electronic signature' broadly, as the common law does, to include any 'electronic sound, symbol or process' that signifies a person's intent to sign the contract.". I believe that e-mail falls under that description.

 

[Mike Finley]

Teetor you may be right, I'm not going to reread it, and there could be some email info in it that I missed. But "digital signatures" have nothing to do with email. They are about encrytion. I have been empolying, purchasing and implimenting digital signatures on the web on e-commerce sites since 1999.

 

[Teetorbilt]

Mike, I think that you are confusing 'digital signatures' with 'electronic signatures', hence the confusion.

 

[Humble Abode]

Mike, I think that you are confusing 'digital signatures' with 'electronic signatures', hence the confusion.

I was asking more about "electronic signatures." I know that the IRS has been using "digital signatures" for e-filing for sometime now.

 

[Teetorbilt]

Humble, the thrust of the thread has been electronic signatures NOT digital verification signatures.
To answer a number of questions simultaniously. A customer can type out his name or mark (even if it looks like Prince's new name), send it by e-mail and it is a valid contract. It proves 'intent'.

 

[Mike Finley]

Okay, never mind, I could have sworn that when I read it she was talking about digital signatures not the legal ramifications of electronic contracts.

 

[Teetorbilt]

Humble is a 'she?'. I never noticed.

 

[Mike Finley]

Referring to the article - "by Wendy R. Leibowitz"

 

[Teetorbilt]

It's been a long day mentally, the worst kind for me. Office work all day makes me grumpy.

 

[Mike Finley]

I hear ya.

This is what I think is what I think I am talking about, but I'm not even sure what the question was now. LOL

"If an email or chain of emails clearly states an offer for entering into a deal with all of the material terms, and the other side responds by email accepting the terms, then there's a good chance that a valid contract has been formed — even though no signatures have been exchanged."

I take this to mean that no signatures of any sort may be required - electronic, digital certificate, no nothing, NADA. This is referring to emailing contracts back and forth. It is all about intent.

In addition, in June 2000, President Clinton signed the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, which set a single national standard for using electronic signatures in contracts and other legal agreements.

The most important consequence is the fact that consumers can now "sign" contracts over the Web by simply pushing a button, clicking a link, or completing some other simple action.

This is referring typically to ecommerce or a software coded script on a website, where there is a mechanism in place where you are clicking on a button acknowleging agreement to terms of a contract, such as signing up for an account on Ebay or the like. This most likely involves digital signatures and such.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least maybe until I decide to change it again.