Electronic execution: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "{{g}}The Unless the instrument is something like a deed or lease which has formal legal requirements, then digital signatures are fine and, in fact, in many respects better t..."
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}The
{{g}}Evidencing [[offer]] and [[acceptance]] of a [[contract]] using digital authentication technology. A topic that for all the current excitement relating to matters digital and artificially intelligent, receives less attention than it really should. For a properly implemented digital execution strategy will yield productivity and data control benefits out of all proportion to the simplicity of the technology, and certainly will have a bigger day-to-day impact on productivity then chatbots, natural language processing or machine learning.
Unless the instrument is something like a deed or lease which has formal legal requirements, then digital signatures are fine and, in fact, in many respects better than a scanned handwritten signature.


The main reason we haven’t adopted them before now are systems limitations and (more to the point) institutional inertia.
===But does it work, legally?===
Cue voluminous, sombre, [[tedious]] monographs on the legal effectiveness in different jurisdictions of electronic signatures.  


End of the day a signature – any signature - is basically evidence to prove an agreement or instruction.  
But  — unless your [[Financial instrument|instrument]] is a [[deed]] or [[lease]] or has peculiar formal execution requirements — most confirmations and instructions which pass between the operational teams of financial institutions don’t—it really needn’t be that complicated. Generally, digital signatures are fine and, in many respects, ''better'' than a handwritten signature, especially a scanned, emailed [[facsimile]] of a handwritten signature which could easily have been forged.  


The key question, always, is “how confident do I feel that this instruction/consent is genuine, so I can prove it to a court later if I need to”.  
For a signature – ''any'' signature — is simply a means of gathering and recording evidence and that your counterparty agreed to your transaction or gave the instruction that your records say it did. It is an [[audit]] trail. It is [[due diligence]]. You will only need it if you wind up having an argument with your counterparty about your [[contract]]. The moment your counterparty denies signing your contract, is the moment you pull out your dog-eared copy of its signature — or your fully authenticated, time-stamped, digital representation of its authorised officer’s agreement. Are


Doesn’t matter if it is a hand-inked signature, a digital signature, or a series of (unambiguous!!) semaphore messages from a person standing on a distant hill whom you sincerely and plausibly believe to be your client. If that is your client, and you have a record of it, it will be very hard for your client to argue later it didn’t give you the instruction in question.  
So your key question, always, is “how confident do I feel that this instruction/consent is genuine, so I can prove it to a court later if I need to?” Where you have a digital signature, in most cases (other then deeds) the natural answer ought to be “very”, or at least “quite”.  


If you get deeds let us know and we can give you chapter and verse, but I doubt you would see execution of deeds in the normal cut and thrust of operational interactions between firm and client.
It doesn’t matter if it is a hand-inked signature scratched on onion skin with a quill and waxen seal, or a two-factor-authenticated digital signature or, for that matter, a series of unambiguous semaphore messages from a person atop a distant hill whom you sincerely and plausibly believe to be your client. If it ''is'' your client, and you have a record of its assent, however communicated to you, it will be hard for your client later to claim the contrary.

Revision as of 10:26, 17 March 2020

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™
Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Evidencing offer and acceptance of a contract using digital authentication technology. A topic that for all the current excitement relating to matters digital and artificially intelligent, receives less attention than it really should. For a properly implemented digital execution strategy will yield productivity and data control benefits out of all proportion to the simplicity of the technology, and certainly will have a bigger day-to-day impact on productivity then chatbots, natural language processing or machine learning.

But does it work, legally?

Cue voluminous, sombre, tedious monographs on the legal effectiveness in different jurisdictions of electronic signatures.

But — unless your instrument is a deed or lease or has peculiar formal execution requirements — most confirmations and instructions which pass between the operational teams of financial institutions don’t—it really needn’t be that complicated. Generally, digital signatures are fine and, in many respects, better than a handwritten signature, especially a scanned, emailed facsimile of a handwritten signature which could easily have been forged.

For a signature – any signature — is simply a means of gathering and recording evidence and that your counterparty agreed to your transaction or gave the instruction that your records say it did. It is an audit trail. It is due diligence. You will only need it if you wind up having an argument with your counterparty about your contract. The moment your counterparty denies signing your contract, is the moment you pull out your dog-eared copy of its signature — or your fully authenticated, time-stamped, digital representation of its authorised officer’s agreement. Are

So your key question, always, is “how confident do I feel that this instruction/consent is genuine, so I can prove it to a court later if I need to?” Where you have a digital signature, in most cases (other then deeds) the natural answer ought to be “very”, or at least “quite”.

It doesn’t matter if it is a hand-inked signature scratched on onion skin with a quill and waxen seal, or a two-factor-authenticated digital signature or, for that matter, a series of unambiguous semaphore messages from a person atop a distant hill whom you sincerely and plausibly believe to be your client. If it is your client, and you have a record of its assent, however communicated to you, it will be hard for your client later to claim the contrary.