From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:06:25 +0800
To: ichudov@algebra.com
Subject: Re: Electronic Signature Act Of 1996
In-Reply-To: <199606050323.WAA09499@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960605162011.7279A-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:

> Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > C'punks,
> > 
> > At 11:11 AM 6/4/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > 
> > >...I get the impression that under the common law, an ink 
> > >signature is merely a demonstration that a party assented 
> > >to a contract, and except for certain contracts (which 
> > >usually require witnesses etc.) there is no requirement in 
> > >the law that a contract even be on paper...
> > 
> > The "Statute of Frauds" lists the exceptions and they cover
> > most important contracts.  I seem to recall that contracts
> > over a given amount or for interests in real property for 
> > periods of a year or more are covered.  I'm sure someone 
> > with current access to legal research resources will post
> > a better explanation.
> 
> [I AM NOT A LAWYER]
> 
> The following contracts are required to be in writing, in most states: 
> 
> 
> 1. A contract of an executor or administrator to answer
> for a duty of the decedent (the executor-administrator
> provision).
> 
> 2. A contract to answer for debt or default of another (the suretyship
> provision).
> 
> 3. A contract made upon consideration of marriage (the marriage provision).
> 
> 4. A contract for sale of goods worth more than $500 (the sales provision).
> 
> 5. A contract for sale of an interest in land (the land provision).
> 
> 6. A contract not preformable within a year (the one-year provision).

Exceptions and loopholes are SO numerous so as to make this list less 
than worthless.

The only straightforward rules are with respect to UCC sale of goods 
contracts.

> 	- Igor.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com