e-conveyancing

[Dave Bird]

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

In article <JAEMIDOAJILJHNAHKHBJEEGNCGAA.david@swarb.freeuk.com>, David
Swarbrick <david@swarb.freeuk.com> writes
>It no longer makes any sense to talk as if there is an original document,
>and continued attempts, a la 144A, to do so will at best miss an
>opportunity, and at worst create confusion, and unnecessary complication and
>possibly danger.
>
>Another way of putting is that instead of talking of the dematerialisation
>of documents, we should be talking of the non-materialisation of evidence of
>agreements.
>
>Am I dreaming?

 I've just jumped into the middle of this, so forgive me if I'm
 a bit confused.  

 In the context of authenticity, I could SOMETIMES find evidence
 that one copy was the original.... nut it simply doesn't matter.
 "A valid copy of the written document, as certified by a valid
 and non-repudiated signature" 


 In other contexts one person might be authorised to hold 
 confidential information, and to issue temporary copies 
 with an agreed expiry date to those who need them.
 

In article <3AC31D29.86ADCE4B@algroup.co.uk>, Ben Laurie writes
>quote:
>>
>> The same is true for transfers of land.  It is essential that there be
>> a document which can be kept around authorising the change.
>> (BTW, I wasn't sure I understood the original post, so I'm sorry if
>> this wasn't the point you were making.)
>
>I think you did misunderstand - the point is that there isn't a "the"
>document, there are any number of independent copies of it.
 .....which are indistinguishable and equally valid. It is no longer
 possible to tell the "photocopy" from the "letter headed original"
 by examining it.


- -- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

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

iQA/AwUBOsN1x38v/Y5zkfRPEQKu9ACgwCyRvd8YqwWrDXC7XnVwPismdM8AoLj7
28L+OFXggel328CRAq1XjH9i
=GYrf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----