82,892
edits
Electronic execution: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{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 | {{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 [[Artificial intelligence|artificially intelligent]], receives less attention than it really should — though Mystic Meg here predicts that might change in 2020 with the planet’s entire negotiation [[Coronavirus|capability sequestered in box rooms in attics]], without any means of arranging a physical signing. | ||
For a properly implemented digital execution strategy will not just keep your [[ISDA ninja]]s safe from [[Coronavirus|pandemic]], but will yield productivity and data control benefits out of all proportion to the simplicity of the technology. This will have a bigger day-to-day impact on productivity than [[chatbot]]s, [[natural language processing]] or the forthcoming [[Singularity]]. | |||
===But does it work, legally?=== | ===But does it work, legally?=== | ||
Cue voluminous, sombre, [[tedious]] monographs on the legal effectiveness in different jurisdictions of electronic signatures.<ref>The [https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/electronic-execution-of-documents/ UK Law Commission], as recently as March 2020, for example.</ref> These are mainly confined to the specific issues arising where a local jurisdiction prescribes some form to the way one enters into a special ''type'' of contract — one relating to the | Cue voluminous, sombre, [[tedious]] monographs on the legal effectiveness in different jurisdictions of electronic signatures.<ref>The [https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/electronic-execution-of-documents/ UK Law Commission], as recently as March 2020, for example.</ref> These are mainly confined to the specific issues arising where a local jurisdiction prescribes some form to the way one enters into a special ''type'' of contract — one relating to the conveyance of real estate, for example, or a [[deed]]. | ||
So — unless your [[Financial instrument|instrument]] is a [[deed]] or [[lease]] or has such peculiar formal execution requirements — and most [[confirmation]]s, instructions and even master trading agreements which pass between the operational teams of financial institutions<ref>Exception: anything signed as a [[deed]]: a [[security financial collateral arrangement]], for example, or a [[guarantee]] or a mnaster agreement building a security interest in, such as a [[prime brokerage agreement]]</ref> won’t — it needn’t be that complicated. Generally, digital signatures are fine and, in many respects, ''better'' than handwritten signatures, 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 thast evidence you wind up having an argument with your counterparty about your [[contract]]. The moment your counterparty ''denies'' signing your contract, or confabulates a claim that the terms of your bargain where different from the ones written down on this piece of paper — that is the moment where your counsel, {{jerrold}} pulls out your agreement, slaps it on the counter in front of him, pointing his spittle-flecked fat little fingers at your adversary’s ''signature'' and triumphantly declares, “Well M’Lud, this here unequivocal evidence of the defendant’s agreement says otherwise!” | 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 thast evidence you wind up having an argument with your counterparty about your [[contract]]. The moment your counterparty ''denies'' signing your contract, or confabulates a claim that the terms of your bargain where different from the ones written down on this piece of paper — that is the moment where your counsel, {{jerrold}} pulls out your agreement, slaps it on the counter in front of him, pointing his spittle-flecked fat little fingers at your adversary’s ''signature'' and triumphantly declares, “Well M’Lud, this here unequivocal evidence of the defendant’s agreement says otherwise!” | ||