header-logo header-logo

Check your email (signatures)!

11 March 2020 / Jamie Sutherland , Imogen Dodds
Issue: 7878 / Categories: Features , Property , Profession
printer mail-detail
17349
Jamie Sutherland & Imogen Dodds consider electronic signatures & formality requirements
  • The High Court decides that an email footer can be a ‘signature’ creating a binding contract for sale of land.
  • Its decision coincides with a Law Commission report recognising the legal effect of electronic execution of documents.
  • The test is whether the ‘signature’ was inserted with the intention of authenticating the document.

As every property practitioner knows, s 2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) requires a contract for the sale or other disposition of land to be ‘signed by or on behalf of each party’. Neocleous v Rees [2019] EWHC 2462 (Ch), [2019] All ER (D) 25 (Oct) was the first occasion on which the court was asked to determine whether an email footer satisfied the requirement for a signature in s 2(3). The issue arose in the context of an alleged compromise agreement between the parties to a property dispute, which was contained in an exchange of emails

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll