Electronic writing, signatures

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <5.1.0.14.0.20011231115634.00ac8950@mail.cix.co.uk>, Peter
Sommer <hcorn@cix.co.uk> writes

>Nicholas Bohm says:
>>The Law Commission, to my surprise, conclude that even without the
>>Electronic Communications Act 2000 the law already recognises e-mail and
>>websites as being in writing within the usual statutory meaning, and
>>recognises typed names or the clicking of "sign now" buttons as signatures.

to avoid confusion: this was the England & Wales Law Commission

>>  The use of PKC or other technical methods for signatures affects the
>>weight to be given to the evidence in the case of a dispute, nothing more.
>
>The Law Commission's conclusions are what I had hoped for - there was in 
>fact almost no need for ECA, 2000 - other than to make the Government feel 
>it was doing something to promote electronic commerce.

I believe that it will make a substantial difference in Scotland because
of the "Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1996".

        not that I disagree with Peter's conclusion - it's more that
        they may have done some good by accident :)

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBPDBz3hfnRQV/feRLEQLmXwCghGTfQpVlh22jD0rJukqH359La1sAoL7V
bxTWEz6+m6ulu6aSlSD122h3
=lp0J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----