Difficulties with e-signatures: How shall we know them?

Jay Forder

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This paper suggests that Australia's Electronic Transactions legislation (and UNCITRAL's 1996 Model Law on Electronic Commerce on which it is based) is unhelpful in trying to decide whether a particular electronic activity is likely to be recognised as a valid signature. It considers whether updating the legislation in light of UNCITRAL's 2001 Model Law on Electronic Signatures or the 2005 UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts would improve the situation. It concludes that such an update would clarify some issues, but that overall it will not solve the difficulties. The paper ends by briefly speculating on the likely attributes of a more helpful approach.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationLegal discourse in cyberlaw and trade
EditorsSylvia Kierkegaard
PublisherInternational Association of IT Lawyers
Pages99-112
Number of pages14
Edition1
ISBN (Print)978-87-991385-7-9
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

electronics
legislation
UN Convention
electronic commerce
Law
transaction
communications

Cite this

Forder, J. (2009). Difficulties with e-signatures: How shall we know them? In S. Kierkegaard (Ed.), Legal discourse in cyberlaw and trade (1 ed., pp. 99-112). International Association of IT Lawyers.
Forder, Jay. / Difficulties with e-signatures : How shall we know them?. Legal discourse in cyberlaw and trade. editor / Sylvia Kierkegaard. 1. ed. International Association of IT Lawyers, 2009. pp. 99-112
@inbook{7dd1f38a02ba41288a2d30120b81218b,
title = "Difficulties with e-signatures: How shall we know them?",
abstract = "This paper suggests that Australia's Electronic Transactions legislation (and UNCITRAL's 1996 Model Law on Electronic Commerce on which it is based) is unhelpful in trying to decide whether a particular electronic activity is likely to be recognised as a valid signature. It considers whether updating the legislation in light of UNCITRAL's 2001 Model Law on Electronic Signatures or the 2005 UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts would improve the situation. It concludes that such an update would clarify some issues, but that overall it will not solve the difficulties. The paper ends by briefly speculating on the likely attributes of a more helpful approach.",
author = "Jay Forder",
year = "2009",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-87-991385-7-9",
pages = "99--112",
editor = "Sylvia Kierkegaard",
booktitle = "Legal discourse in cyberlaw and trade",
publisher = "International Association of IT Lawyers",
edition = "1",

}

Forder, J 2009, Difficulties with e-signatures: How shall we know them? in S Kierkegaard (ed.), Legal discourse in cyberlaw and trade. 1 edn, International Association of IT Lawyers, pp. 99-112.

Difficulties with e-signatures : How shall we know them? / Forder, Jay.

Legal discourse in cyberlaw and trade. ed. / Sylvia Kierkegaard. 1. ed. International Association of IT Lawyers, 2009. p. 99-112.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Difficulties with e-signatures

T2 - How shall we know them?

AU - Forder, Jay

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - This paper suggests that Australia's Electronic Transactions legislation (and UNCITRAL's 1996 Model Law on Electronic Commerce on which it is based) is unhelpful in trying to decide whether a particular electronic activity is likely to be recognised as a valid signature. It considers whether updating the legislation in light of UNCITRAL's 2001 Model Law on Electronic Signatures or the 2005 UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts would improve the situation. It concludes that such an update would clarify some issues, but that overall it will not solve the difficulties. The paper ends by briefly speculating on the likely attributes of a more helpful approach.

AB - This paper suggests that Australia's Electronic Transactions legislation (and UNCITRAL's 1996 Model Law on Electronic Commerce on which it is based) is unhelpful in trying to decide whether a particular electronic activity is likely to be recognised as a valid signature. It considers whether updating the legislation in light of UNCITRAL's 2001 Model Law on Electronic Signatures or the 2005 UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts would improve the situation. It concludes that such an update would clarify some issues, but that overall it will not solve the difficulties. The paper ends by briefly speculating on the likely attributes of a more helpful approach.

UR - http://www.iaitl.org/publications.html

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-87-991385-7-9

SP - 99

EP - 112

BT - Legal discourse in cyberlaw and trade

A2 - Kierkegaard, Sylvia

PB - International Association of IT Lawyers

ER -

Forder J. Difficulties with e-signatures: How shall we know them? In Kierkegaard S, editor, Legal discourse in cyberlaw and trade. 1 ed. International Association of IT Lawyers. 2009. p. 99-112