Electronic execution: Difference between revisions

Electronic execution (view source)

Revision as of 15:18, 19 March 2020

357 bytes removed , 19 March 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,903

edits

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 But cue voluminous, [[tedious]] monographs on its legal effectiveness in different jurisdictions and for peculiar contract forms.<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 where a local jurisdiction prescribes some arcane ''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 won’t<ref>Exception: anything signed as a [[deed]]: a [[security financial collateral arrangement]], for example, or a [[guarantee]] or a master agreement building a security interest in, such as a [[prime brokerage agreement]]</ref>  — 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.
+So  — unless your [[Financial instrument|instrument]] one of those contracts with peculiar formal execution requirements — and most [[confirmation]]s, instructions and even master trading agreements which pass between the operational teams of financial institutions won’t<ref>Exception: anything signed as a [[deed]]: a [[security financial collateral arrangement]], for example, or a [[guarantee]] or a master agreement building a security interest in, such as a [[prime brokerage agreement]]</ref>  — it needn’t be that complicated. Generally, digital signatures are fine and, really, ''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 that evidence should you wind up arguing with your counterparty about your [[contract]]. The moment your counterparty ''denies'' signing it, 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 registrar’s desk, pointing his spittle-flecked fat little fingers at your adversary’s ''signature'' and triumphantly declares, “Well M’Lud, ''this here'' is unequivocal evidence of the defendant’s agreement to the contract says otherwise!”
+''Any'' signature is simply a means of gathering and recording evidence that your counterparty agreed to your transaction or gave you the instruction that your records say it did. It is an [[audit]] trail. It is [[due diligence]]. You will only need that evidence should your counterparty ''deny'' your [[contract]], or its instruction. The moment it does, or confects a claim that your ''actual'' bargain is different from how you wrote it down on this piece of paper — that is the moment where your counsel, {{jerrold}} pulls out your agreement, slaps it on the registrar’s desk, pointing his spittle-flecked fat little fingers at your adversary’s ''signature''.
-So how would you feel were it not a dog-eared contract with a hastily-appended scribble on it, but a two-factor authenticated, time-stamped, [[distributed ledger]]-registered digital record of your counterparty’s authorised officer’s assent? Most well adjusted merchants would say, “rather better”.<ref>Or will be until you learn about the courts’ Luddite comprehension of [[Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc - Case Note|email]].</ref>
+So how would Sir Jerrold feel, were this dramatic reveasl not a dog-eared contract with a hastily-appended scribble on it, but a two-factor authenticated, time-stamped, [[distributed ledger]]-registered digital record of your counterparty’s authorised officer’s assent? Most well-adjusted counsel would say, “rather better”.
 It doesn’t matter if it is a hand-inked signature scratched on onion skin with a quill and waxen seal, 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, it will be hard for your client later to claim the contrary.