-
Yes - see Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries PVT Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 265 in which a name at the end of an email was held to constitute a signature for the purposes of the Statute of Frauds 1677. In any event, unless it's a guarantee or a contract for the sale of land, or another type of contract where the law requires specific formalities before a contract can arise, there's no requirement for a signature in order to create a legally-binding contract. The fact that they've returned it and said they've signed it shows that they've agreed to its terms.
I have to return my contract of employment, work have said I need to print it, sign it, then scan that and email it - would your above statement indicate that I can actually return it as an attachment with "I agree, Neil" in the email body? Would save a lot of hassle.
Dammit-
Interested to know the correct answer to this (although I think Danstuff has already addressed that) - It's something I have to contend with all the time at work.
-
I have to return my contract of employment, work have said I need to print it, sign it, then scan that and email it - would your above statement indicate that I can actually return it as an attachment with "I agree, Neil" in the email body? Would save a lot of hassle.
Them sending you the contract is an offer. It becomes a contract once you accept it. Acceptance can be by any means of communication you like, provided it's unequivocal. Signing the contract, writing a letter, an email, a phone call, interpretative dance - take your pick. However, the person making the offer can specify the mode of acceptance, and attempts to accept by any other means will be treated as a counter-offer. Although they haven't said as such expressly, they could argue that their statement that you need to print, sign, scan and email the written contract amounts to a restriction on the permissible means of acceptance so that attempting to accept the offer by any other means would not give rise to a binding contract. Whether or not that would be the proper interpretation of their requirement of a signed copy would depend upon the precise words used, the surrounding factual matrix, and the application of the five principles of interpretation identified by Lord Hoffman in the Investors Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich Building Society case. If you'd like to argue the point, I know many lawyers who would be very happy to argue the point at inordinate length and expense. Personally, I'd just do what they're asking for.
JurekB
Brommers
Yes - see Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries PVT Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 265 in which a name at the end of an email was held to constitute a signature for the purposes of the Statute of Frauds 1677. In any event, unless it's a guarantee or a contract for the sale of land, or another type of contract where the law requires specific formalities before a contract can arise, there's no requirement for a signature in order to create a legally-binding contract. The fact that they've returned it and said they've signed it shows that they've agreed to its terms.