A recent ruling from the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) shows that simply signing your name at the end of a WhatsApp message or e-mail is enough to constitute a binding agreement.<\/p>\n
The SCA ruling in November found that e-mail negotiations and typed e-mail signatures were binding.<\/p>\n
In the case, two companies signed agreements with clauses providing that cancellation to a specific contract could only be made in writing and signed by both parties.<\/p>\n
However, when the contract was to be cancelled, the terms of the cancellation were recorded in an e-mail exchange and the names of the parties appeared at the bottom of each e-mail.<\/p>\n
When one of the businesses entered into another agreement with another company, the former partner interdicted the arrangement on the basis of breaching the former contract.<\/p>\n
On appealing the interdict, the SCA upheld the appeal, ruling that the email exchange cancelling the contract was binding in terms of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 2002 (ECTA).<\/p>\n
Following the ruling, law firms Webber Wenzel and Norton Rose Fulbright detailed how the SCA reached its conclusion.<\/p>\n
Norton Rose Fulbright associate Nerushka Deosaran<\/a> noted that the ECTA gives communications via data messages (including WhatsApp, BBM, and even social media) the same effect as non-electronic documents.<\/p>\n “This means that if there is a requirement to have a document in writing, the ECTA gives the same legal effect to that document in electronic format,” Deosaran said.<\/p>\n When a signature is required by law, however, the ECTA requires electronic communication to contain an “advanced electronic signature” from an accredited authority.<\/p>\n “But an agreement between private parties to sign a document…does not amount to a legal requirement for a signature and therefore an advanced electronic signature is not required.”<\/p>\n If a type of electronic signature isn’t agreed upon by both parties when transacting electronically, a person’s name at the end of an email or data message is enough to satisfy the requirements set out by the ECTA – namely:<\/p>\n Webber Wentzel technology, media, and telecommunications head Robby Coelho noted further that parties should exercise caution in their electronic communications, given how pervasive these communications are in the workplace.<\/p>\n E-mails about contracts should be binding: law firm<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Delay SA online content regulation laws: ISPA<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Nothing is safe on the Internet: lawyer<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
More on electronic law<\/h3>\n