On Thu, 30 May 2002, Steve Furlong wrote: > Summary: Recent laws have attempted to make electronic contracting > binding, but they have not addressed some of the fundamental principles > of contract law. These fundamental principles are often stretched or > broken in electronic contracting. There is no case law on electronic > contracts. I suspect that a contested electronic contract would be > easily voided.
Thanks, that was very enlightening. The URL is good too - they mention that "An electronic signature is defined as being: 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. " I would never have thought of making a sound as part of a signature! but for voice prints, it might be a good idea. > OK, that's the way I think it is, currently in the US. The way I think > it _should_ be is much more caveat emptor, as Dr Mike and others have > said, but the legislators and judges have neglected to ask for my input. Yes, and even if we tried to give input nobody would listen to me :-) Most of the issues here are human interface, what is reasonable to expect for a valid contract. The only thing I've ever "signed" online is an order for parts via credit card, and so far it's never been a legal problem. But I see where there could be major problems if people aren't really damn careful, so I'll probably be a lot more careful than I thought I was before! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike