header-logo header-logo

11 March 2020 / Jamie Sutherland , Imogen Dodds
Issue: 7878 / Categories: Features , Property , Profession
printer mail-detail

Check your email (signatures)!

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll