On 2003-09-06, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Not true, the UK has a set of rules as to what constitutes sufficient >> authority to be bound by the contents of a document. The Electronic >> Communications Act 2000 extended these to include digital signatures, >> such as those created by PGP, if the signer so wished it to be >> interpreted it that way. > > This contradicts what I have been told. In any case, surely it is well > known that it is possible to make a contract without any form of > writing, and any relevant circumstance may be used as evidence that a > contract was made, unless specifically excluded by rules such as > "hearsay". > ... >> Posessing a digitally signed e-mail from the author would have (under UK >> law) the same power as holding a written letter signed by the author. > > That's bullshit, I think. But let's not bother discussing it any > further. > > ... >> A signature and a seal are the same thing. > > I disagree strongly, but let's not waste time on it any more.
Are you aware that it is extremely rude to reply to a message containing references to specific UK laws, call it "bullshit" and "disagree strongly", but neglect to perform your own research and not want to "bother" discussing it or "waste time" on the issue? If you're really not interested, then this message served no purpose; if you are interested, you should respond with something of more substance. Did you look up the law, for instance? (I did look at the Electronic Communications Act at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000007.htm, and it does seem to say just what Scott Remnant said. But I didn't look closely.) Peace, Dylan
