From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 20:56:48 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Electronic Signature Act Of 1996
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960605091100.1cd70da2@mail.io.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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."

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.)

--
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.