5 ms·

Just a layman here but that seems like a misinterpretation of the statute? The idea of the statute seems to be that the government will not void, nullify, or re

Just a layman here but that seems like a misinterpretation of the statute? The idea of the statute seems to be that the government will not void, nullify, or refuse to enforce the terms of an electronic contract. It does not state that in any given contract, private parties must accept the terms signed in any form whatsoever -- that's still left as something for those people to agree on, and Chase very clearly spelled out that that's not valid for the contract. So the "reason" for the invalidity of a contract wouldn't be that it has an electronic signature, but that one of the parties simply didn't follow the terms it set for validity (whatever they were -- in this case, that they be personally signed, and mailed by the actual account holder). So I'm very curious how legal opinions interpret the statute otherwise, since I don't see any hint that it was intended to be interpreted as allowing one of the parties to change the signing terms to include electronic signatures.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> the idea of the statute seems to be that the government will not void, nullify, or refuse to enforce the terms of an electronic contract Unless Chase explicitly said wet signature, then a government court would find the electronic signature valid.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  While I disagree on that point, what about the fact that the terms require you to mail it yourself. Edit: Also, I'm not sure what "wet signature" means. The claim was not quite that the signature has to be in ink. The debate is over whether you (not someone else) are performing the signing, and whether you (not someone else) are mailing (not emailing etc.) it on paper (not e.g. a flash drive) or not. Which, to me, means you could sign on your computer/tablet/etc., then print that as your signature with a printer and then mail the form, with no ink involved anywhere in the process. That seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation of "personally signing" the letter and "mailing" it, so Chase would have a hard time arguing you didn't do that. But to type your name on a random website for someone else to print and mail the contract on your behalf? You neither personally signed that letter (whether on the computer or on the paper) nor did you mail it... all you did was casually tell some random guy on the internet to impersonate you to your financial institution.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    I agree with you on the mailing part. Was just pointing out that a personal signature and electronic signature are identical unless specifically stated otherwise due to the E-Sign Act.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      Re: that part: but you don't even have any way to sign this electronically to begin with. They did not provide you with an electronic form/page/whatever to sign, nor an electronic address to send your signature to. The contract required you to personally sign and mail a letter into that P.O. Box, and unless you plan on downloading your signature into that P.O. Box, you don't really have any other option besides paper (unless you get clever with papyrus or something I guess). No matter how I slice and dice it I don't see how the E-Sign act has any kind of relevance here... except perhaps for the part that if you keep a scanned copy of your letter for your records, that'd be considered just as valid of a record as a photocopy?
  - Cogito 7y ago
    Reading the above comment, where does it say it has to be personally mailed? > Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298. That sounds like it has to be mailed, but who does the mailing doesn't matter. Similarly, wouldn't matter if you used the post or a courier.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      I didn't mean "mail" as in "literally drop off the envelope in the post box", I just meant "mail" as in "write the letter to be mailed". And no, when I say "write" I don't mean it necessarily precludes voice recognition or whatever new counterexample you might be trying to think of now either.
      - Cogito 7y ago
        Fair enough. I'm not sure what that means though. If I printed off the form from the website would that count as me writing the letter to be mailed? In any case, in the stuff quoted up top, I don't read this concept that it must be done personally. For example, it seems like it would be fine for my accountant to do it for me (though they may need me to sign it? maybe they can affix a seal or something) There must be a way for a business to opt out of this clause, right?
paulgb 7y ago
I spent an afternoon looking into this a few weeks ago (I ran a mass opt-out campaign for Equifax a few years ago[1] and wanted to do it again for Chase) and I came to the exact same conclusion you did. I want to appreciate what’s going on here but at the same time it seems irresponsible to give people the impression that they have opted out when they haven’t. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15207151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15207151
DannyBee 7y ago
Non-layman here, no it's not an misinterpretation of the statute. It makes electronic signatures as good as regular ones in interstate commerce. Period. Full stop. Caselaw supports this in spades. The only meaningful case otherwise is where statutes explicitly require in-writing signatures (a good example is copyright transfers). There is an intra-state version of this is UETA.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Could I ask which part of this "case law supports in spades"? I imagine you're not claiming they have to accept emails (?) and otherwise I don't even see how you could e-sign this to begin with; you have to write the letter that ends up in their P.O. Box somehow, so you have to make the statement yourself and put your personal signature on paper (via ink or toner or otherwise is not the point) and mail it to them. But here you don't even write the letter or sign the letter yourself in any sense of the word. Like if a judge asked you "you need to have written and personally signed this letter for it to be valid; did you do that?" would you just give a straight unqualified "yes" and believe that would fly?
  - jachee 7y ago
    "Yes. I personally filled out an electronic signature for my intent to opt out, Your Honor."
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      "You did not answer my question" is what I would expect after that.
      - DannyBee 7y ago
        The answer to your question would be yes. Your electronic signature, printed out and transformed to a different medium, is still a valid signature. The whole point of the act is to say that clicking a button on a computer to make a signature that is valid. That it later gets transmitted in some other form is irrelevant. If i create and print out a docusigned document and mail it, it is still a personally written and signed document. It is no different if I fill out a form that makes a document for me and click a button to sign it. If this is confusing, answer my reply above and I'll try to start seeing where the confusion is

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> the idea of the statute seems to be that the government will not void, nullify, or refuse to enforce the terms of an electronic contract Unless Chase explicitly said wet signature, then a government court would find the electronic signature valid.

mehrdadn 7y ago
While I disagree on that point, what about the fact that the terms require you to mail it yourself. Edit: Also, I'm not sure what "wet signature" means. The claim was not quite that the signature has to be in ink. The debate is over whether you (not someone else) are performing the signing, and whether you (not someone else) are mailing (not emailing etc.) it on paper (not e.g. a flash drive) or not. Which, to me, means you could sign on your computer/tablet/etc., then print that as your signature with a printer and then mail the form, with no ink involved anywhere in the process. That seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation of "personally signing" the letter and "mailing" it, so Chase would have a hard time arguing you didn't do that. But to type your name on a random website for someone else to print and mail the contract on your behalf? You neither personally signed that letter (whether on the computer or on the paper) nor did you mail it... all you did was casually tell some random guy on the internet to impersonate you to your financial institution.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  I agree with you on the mailing part. Was just pointing out that a personal signature and electronic signature are identical unless specifically stated otherwise due to the E-Sign Act.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    Re: that part: but you don't even have any way to sign this electronically to begin with. They did not provide you with an electronic form/page/whatever to sign, nor an electronic address to send your signature to. The contract required you to personally sign and mail a letter into that P.O. Box, and unless you plan on downloading your signature into that P.O. Box, you don't really have any other option besides paper (unless you get clever with papyrus or something I guess). No matter how I slice and dice it I don't see how the E-Sign act has any kind of relevance here... except perhaps for the part that if you keep a scanned copy of your letter for your records, that'd be considered just as valid of a record as a photocopy?
- Cogito 7y ago
  Reading the above comment, where does it say it has to be personally mailed? > Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298. That sounds like it has to be mailed, but who does the mailing doesn't matter. Similarly, wouldn't matter if you used the post or a courier.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    I didn't mean "mail" as in "literally drop off the envelope in the post box", I just meant "mail" as in "write the letter to be mailed". And no, when I say "write" I don't mean it necessarily precludes voice recognition or whatever new counterexample you might be trying to think of now either.
    - Cogito 7y ago
      Fair enough. I'm not sure what that means though. If I printed off the form from the website would that count as me writing the letter to be mailed? In any case, in the stuff quoted up top, I don't read this concept that it must be done personally. For example, it seems like it would be fine for my accountant to do it for me (though they may need me to sign it? maybe they can affix a seal or something) There must be a way for a business to opt out of this clause, right?

paulgb 7y ago

I spent an afternoon looking into this a few weeks ago (I ran a mass opt-out campaign for Equifax a few years ago[1] and wanted to do it again for Chase) and I came to the exact same conclusion you did. I want to appreciate what’s going on here but at the same time it seems irresponsible to give people the impression that they have opted out when they haven’t. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15207151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15207151

DannyBee 7y ago

Non-layman here, no it's not an misinterpretation of the statute. It makes electronic signatures as good as regular ones in interstate commerce. Period. Full stop. Caselaw supports this in spades. The only meaningful case otherwise is where statutes explicitly require in-writing signatures (a good example is copyright transfers). There is an intra-state version of this is UETA.

mehrdadn 7y ago
Could I ask which part of this "case law supports in spades"? I imagine you're not claiming they have to accept emails (?) and otherwise I don't even see how you could e-sign this to begin with; you have to write the letter that ends up in their P.O. Box somehow, so you have to make the statement yourself and put your personal signature on paper (via ink or toner or otherwise is not the point) and mail it to them. But here you don't even write the letter or sign the letter yourself in any sense of the word. Like if a judge asked you "you need to have written and personally signed this letter for it to be valid; did you do that?" would you just give a straight unqualified "yes" and believe that would fly?
- jachee 7y ago
  "Yes. I personally filled out an electronic signature for my intent to opt out, Your Honor."
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    "You did not answer my question" is what I would expect after that.
    - DannyBee 7y ago
      The answer to your question would be yes. Your electronic signature, printed out and transformed to a different medium, is still a valid signature. The whole point of the act is to say that clicking a button on a computer to make a signature that is valid. That it later gets transmitted in some other form is irrelevant. If i create and print out a docusigned document and mail it, it is still a personally written and signed document. It is no different if I fill out a form that makes a document for me and click a button to sign it. If this is confusing, answer my reply above and I'll try to start seeing where the confusion is