Skip to main content

Insight article

January 30, 2020

Don’t put your footer in it when it comes to contracts

Companies are being urged to review their electronic procedures following a court ruling that an automatic email signature could suffice to conclude a binding contract.

Although legislation to align e-signature standards across the EU was introduced by the Electronic Identification Regulation in 2016 and the Electronic Communications Act 2000, there remains confusion.

Head of Corporate and Commercial Victoria Holland explains:

“As a general rule, no contract made under English law needs to be signed, or even be in writing, unless the contract is a guarantee for payment by someone else, or it relates to land or is made by deed. People often think they must sign on the dotted line to seal a deal but in many situations all that is needed is a clear agreement and intention.

With the increased use of electronic communications in contractual negotiations, it is important for companies to understand all the different circumstances in which an exchange may form a binding contract.”

Last year, the Law Commission published a report on the electronic execution of documents to tackle this uncertainty. The Law Commission confirmed that e-signatures could be used to execute documents as an alternative to wet ink signatures in most circumstances and relied upon as evidence.

The recent case of Neocleous v Rees signals a further shift in the approach to e-signatures with implications for anyone involved in electronic, contractual negotiations.

The court ruled that including the writer’s name in the automatic email footer amounted to an electronic signature and was sufficient to conclude a binding contract for transferring an interest in land.

The judge said that the email sender knew that his name would be added as a footer and, although it was an automatic process, it represented a conscious decision, combined with the name and contact details being in the conventional style of a signature, at the end of the document.

Head of Dispute Resolution, M. Qaiser Khanzada, explains:

“This case related to a fairly rare type of property transaction but has an important message for day-to-day communications. If companies are to avoid inadvertently entering into a contract with suppliers or customers, they should incorporate a clear disclaimer designed to prevent the accidental formation of a contract and not simply rely on an automatic proviso to their e-signatures.”

It follows that, as well as email footers, other methods that could create a valid signature include:

  • secure passwords
  • tick-boxes
  • PIN numbers

Ink signatures are still required for the execution of deeds, as the signature must be witnessed, and the law does not presently allow for remote witnessing. However, live video witnessing is under discussion.

For contract enquiries, speak to Victoria Holland today. For contract disputes, call M. Qaiser Khanzada today.

Note: This is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more
  • Supreme court ruling on referees’ employment status
    In PGMOL v HMRC, the Supreme Court considered whether professional referees were self-employed. The case has the potential for far-reaching implications across the employment world.


    Read more
  • Business First Magazine
    Read our expert insights on key workplace and corporate issues.


    Read more
  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more
  • Ensuring equality: A legal guide to responsibilities and compliance
    Understanding equal opportunities in the workplace


    Read more

What they say...

  • Anon, April 2025
    “Whistleblowing dismissal claim and settlement negotiations I can not speak highly enough of this firm and [Patrick Simpson], they were not only understanding of my case needs they also worked with the up most integrity and professionalism to e

  • Patrick, April 2025
    “We had a long process handled by Charlotte & James from RIAA Barker Gillette. Even though we were outside the UK Charlotte & James we’re always available and we developed a great working relationship with them.They gave sound advice,

  • Leann Paris, March 2025
    “From the beginning to the end, the support we have received throughout the case with all the staff members has been far more than we expected, we got kept up to date with every single matter, I have had stressful few years but Charlotte and he

  • C Smith, March 2025
    “As executor of a will it was a relief for a solicitor to act on my behalf as though no disputes it was still a lengthy and complex process. It was dealt with mostly by Charlotte B. who kept me informed at all times. She explained the process c

  • Marc, March 2025
    “RIAA Barker Gillette were engaged to handle a real estate transaction with unusual circumstances. As a non-UK resident unfamiliar with English conveyancing procedures, I felt completely satisfied with the depth of the information and explanati

Read more
Send this to a friend