Posted: May 28th, 2023

Until 1677 and the creation of the Statute of Frauds in England

Until 1677 and the creation of the Statute of Frauds in England, all contracts could be either written or oral and yet be equally binding on the parties. After 1677, the law required certain types of contracts (such as contracts to buy or sell land) to be both made in writing and executed with the physical signatures of all of the parties involved. At any time thereafter, either party could challenge the authenticity of the physical signature of his/her own handwriting or the handwriting of the other party. Recently, with the increase of e-commerce, an electronic signature (non-physical) has become as equally binding as the physical signature with severe limitations allowed in challenging the authenticity. Has this developed out of necessity, or have we simply moved too far with the law accommodating the digital age?

Post your initial response to the discussion question no later than Thursday 11:59 PM EST/EDT. You will not be able to see any of your classmates’ posts until you have posted your initial response.

If you are posting your initial response, click the Start a New Thread button.
If you are responding, click the Reply to Thread button for the thread you wish to respond to.

Respond to at least two of your classmates no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT.
View other drafts

The development of electronic signatures as a legally binding form of contract has been driven by necessity. In the digital age, it is no longer practical or efficient to require all contracts to be signed in ink on paper. Electronic signatures offer a number of advantages over traditional signatures, including:

They are faster and more convenient.
They can be used to sign documents from anywhere in the world.
They are more secure than traditional signatures, as they can be encrypted and time-stamped.

While there are some concerns about the security of electronic signatures, these concerns can be addressed through the use of strong encryption and other security measures. Overall, the benefits of electronic signatures far outweigh the risks.

The move to electronic signatures is not without its critics. Some argue that electronic signatures are not as secure as traditional signatures and that they can be easily forged. Others argue that electronic signatures do not provide the same level of legal certainty as traditional signatures.

Despite these criticisms, the use of electronic signatures is becoming increasingly widespread. In the United States, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act) of 2000 makes electronic signatures legally equivalent to traditional signatures for all purposes under federal law. Most states have also passed laws that recognize the validity of electronic signatures.

As the use of electronic signatures continues to grow, it is likely that the legal and regulatory framework governing them will continue to evolve. However, the trend is clear: electronic signatures are here to stay.

In response to your question, I believe that the development of electronic signatures as a legally binding form of contract is a positive development. It is a necessary step in the digital age, and it offers a number of advantages over traditional signatures. While there are some concerns about the security of electronic signatures, these concerns can be addressed through the use of strong encryption and other security measures. Overall, the benefits of electronic signatures far outweigh the risks.

Order | Check Discount