Electronic signature on mac with validity
Plaintiffs, investors in Defendant Fair’s entities, claimed that Fair misrepresented facts to them and failed to properly document the transactions. How does this play out in practice? The California Court of Appeal addressed these issues in J.B.B. Section 1633.9 makes an electronic signature attributable to a person “if it was the act of the person,” and then explains that the act of a person “may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.” Other sections complete the UETA’s statutory scheme allowing parties to conduct business electronically. Subject to a number of exceptions, section 1633.8 provides that if a law requires information be provided in writing and parties have agreed to conduct a transaction by electronic means, the written requirement is satisfied by providing an electronic record “capable of retention by the recipient” at the time of receipt.
Section 1633.7 provides that no record, signature, or contract may be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form or an electronic record was used in its formation. (h) “Electronic signature” means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the electronic record. The Legislature provided a test for determining this: “hether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct.” Section 1633.2 defines electronic signature as Section 1633.5(b) limits the UETA to transactions where the parties have agreed to conduct the transaction electronically. If the parties follow the provisions of the 17 subsections of the UETA, they can form contracts or conduct business entirely electronically, without the need to exchange wet signatures on paper via mail or courier. The UETA enhanced Californians’ ability to use electronic means to conduct business. Critically, there must be evidence that both parties agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means, and there must be evidence that the electronic signature is the act of the person who purportedly signed. These opinions emphasize how important it is to adopt procedures that comply with the statutory requirements if one wants to use electronic signatures to form a contract. When is an electronic signature sufficient to make an agreement enforceable? Two recent California Court of Appeal decisions rejected efforts to enforce agreements supposedly entered into with electronic signatures under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (the “UETA”) because there was insufficient evidence that the statute’s requirements were met.