Template:M intro repack virtual signing: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
If you play fast and loose with the form of execution, especially for deeds, you risk your contract failing altogether. | If you play fast and loose with the form of execution, especially for deeds, you risk your contract failing altogether. | ||
====Law Society guidance==== | ====Law Society guidance==== | ||
Now you might say this is just lawyers executing the “[[chicken licken]]” line-out call and collapsing to the turf clutching their face — JC would not disagree with you — but there is some Law Society guidance, [[ | Now you might say this is just lawyers executing the “[[chicken licken]]” line-out call and collapsing to the turf clutching their face — JC would not disagree with you — but there is some Law Society guidance, [[Media:Guidance on the Execution of Documents.pdf|here]], to help you through the night. It is lengthy, turgid, qualified, studded with disclaimers and only gets to the point with great reluctance. | ||
''Mercury'' is an unappealed first-instance decision. You sense, the legal fraternity is — rightly, in JC’s opinion — a bit ''dark'' about it. The leading case remains the century-old Court of Appeal decision of {{cite|Koenigsblatt|Sweet|1923|2 Ch|314}}. | ''Mercury'' is an unappealed first-instance decision. You sense, the legal fraternity is — rightly, in JC’s opinion — a bit ''dark'' about it. The leading case remains the century-old Court of Appeal decision of {{cite|Koenigsblatt|Sweet|1923|2 Ch|314}}. | ||
Latest revision as of 12:27, 27 February 2024
Virtual signing
(n.)
Contracts: The conclusion of a written contract by means of the internet, where not all signatories are physically present.
Not to be confused with virtue signalling.
If you should contemplate signing legal documents “over the wiresÏ, rather than getting together to physically squiggle on parchment, give each other ornamental biros, pose for awkward photographs, peel off for a boozy closing dinner and so on — they were fun the good old days — then cave less you trade onionskin for the banana skin of Mercury Tax Group Limited v HMRC and bish the execution up.
If you play fast and loose with the form of execution, especially for deeds, you risk your contract failing altogether.
Law Society guidance
Now you might say this is just lawyers executing the “chicken licken” line-out call and collapsing to the turf clutching their face — JC would not disagree with you — but there is some Law Society guidance, here, to help you through the night. It is lengthy, turgid, qualified, studded with disclaimers and only gets to the point with great reluctance.
Mercury is an unappealed first-instance decision. You sense, the legal fraternity is — rightly, in JC’s opinion — a bit dark about it. The leading case remains the century-old Court of Appeal decision of Koenigsblatt v Sweet [1923] 2 Ch 314.
Recent developments
Note the more recent case of Bioconstruct GmbH v Winspear [2020] EWHC 7 which seems to support the Mercury case and cast some doubt on the arguments in the Law Society memo.
Awkward.