Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As technology pervades all aspects of business life, business leaders, customers and employees increasingly expect to be able to execute signatures on agreements, documents and elsewhere with the same level of convenience and assurance as the rest of their IT-enabled business. In response, organizations are exploring solutions allowing individuals to sign these documents electronically, and without requiring signatories be physically present. These electronic signature ("e-signature") solutions provide substantial benefits not only in terms of convenience, but also security and record keeping. However, in assessing whether or how to employ e-signatures, particularly in higher risk transactions, organizations should be careful to manage the practical issues and potential legal complexities associated with e-signatures through careful assessment and a robust governance program.
Implemented correctly with appropriate controls, e-signatures can provide marked improvements in convenience and overall security when compared with traditional physical or "wet" signatures. The ability to instantaneously execute a contract facilitates efficiency and convenience for all interested parties. E-signature solutions also complement current efforts by many businesses to centrally integrate and manage their contracts into digital repositories. Furthermore, forensic security controls coupled with e-signatures provide authoritative and quick verification, reducing the opportunity for fraud or challenges to authenticity.
However, different e-signatures present varying levels of practical risk associated with demonstrating their authenticity and enforceability. Many different types of e-signatures may be considered enforceable under U.S. and foreign law, including the use of an e-signature service, but also typing one's name or initials, an email address or signature line or a scanned manuscript signature, to name a few. In assessing which e-signatures are permitted and in what contexts, an effective e-signature program takes into account the following practical issues: authentication, adoption, non-repudiation, and admissibility.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.