From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 15:25:30 +0800
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Signature Act Of 1996
In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960605091100.1cd70da2@mail.io.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960605162420.7279B-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Greg Broiles wrote:

> 
> I think more apropos to the discussion of electronic signatures is UCC
> 1-201(39), "'Signed' includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with
> present intention to authenticate a writing." Comment 39 to 1-201 indicates
> "[a]uthentication may be printed, stamped or written; it may be by initials
> or by thumbprint. It may be on any part of the document and in appropriate
> cases may be found in a billhead or letterhead. No catalog of possible
> authentications can be complete and the court must use common sense and
> commercial experience in passing upon these matters. The question always is
> whether the symbol was executed or adopted by the party with present
> intention to authenticate the writing." And comment 2 to 3-401 (re
> negotiable instruments) indicates that a signature may be "handwritten,
> typed, printed or made in any other manner."

Please remember that the UCC's application is generally restricted to the 
sales of goods or acts between merchants.

> 
> So I don't see why that wouldn't include a PGP signature, a traditional
> ".signature" block, or the typed "/s/ Greg Broiles" used in some
> circumstances. (Of course, the UCC doesn't apply to every transaction, nor
> is it adopted in identical form in every state, blah blah blah.) But it's
> always nice if the legislature is willing to say "This is the right way to
> create an electronic signature" because then we don't have to wonder. 
> (However, a signature and a contract are not the same thing - and you don't
> need to have a contract to have an enforceable obligation. A nonrepudiable
> document still isn't a self-executing one.)

See above.

> --
> Greg Broiles                |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of
> gbroiles@netbox.com         |an in-court demonstration by the People
> http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt
>                             |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.
> 

---
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