How/why are e-signatures legally binding?

[Ahsoka2001]

Source - www.gov.uk/government/publications/electronic-signatures-accepted-by-hm-land-registry-pg82/our-practice-on-electronic-signatures-taken-from-the-version-of-practice-guide-8-that-was-current-between-1-november-2021-and-27-march-2022#:~:text=In%20Law%20Com%20No%20386,a%20document%2C%20including%20a%20deed.

I thought the whole reason a signature in ink could be considered legally binding was cause the handwriting of the ink made it fairly safe to assume it was written by the person in question. With an e-signature, though, couldn't anyone write the person's name and no one would know any different with the absence of handwriting? How would a court possibly prove it was one person who typed the name and not another?

Why? Because Government departments don't want to be bothered with paper forms.

If someone denied that they signed a document electronically, I don't see how a court could judge. It's possible the electronic address of the device used could be stored somewhere in the data, but what about VPNs and shared computers?

Platforms such as DocuSign and MyDocSafe etc essentially record the execution as a transaction with a unique ID, time stamp, IP address, access code and two/three step authentication to a personal device. It would therefore ultimately be relatively difficult to argue that the document was signed by somebody other than the individual intended; albeit not impossible.

But you sign your signature anyway, so it should match your handwritten ink signature.

Not on a PC, at least. You type your name and a signature appears in a random "handwriting" font. I've just done that on my self-assessment return for HMRC.

Also, a squiggle produced by a finger on a mobile device screen is rarely anything like a person's signature written by hand on paper. You should see my effort when I sign for a parcel at the door.

If someone fraudulently signed something I guess a court could request the data including time and ip and then your would have to prove you were somewhere else doing something else (hopefully with someone or some proof to back you up)

We get most of our clients to do e-signatures. It's instigated by an email address, i.e. the "link" to sign it is sent to the email address previously used for communication etc, so that's the first "check". The e-signing system itself is password protected, so again, that means it can only be accessed by the person we've been dealing with by email as that's how the password and access to the system is first instigated. Once e-signed, we get a "ping" of the ip address, device type, browser type, date and time, confirmation of email used to access the system, etc. So, it's not just a random e-signature, it's "parcelled up" in a package of other data, and based around the email address and password protection.

We'd never do it with an email address that we hadn't previously used for communication with the client, and mostly, we've received most of the information/scanned documents, etc from that same email address, so there'd be plenty of evidence that we were dealing with the same person who'd sent us the information to compile the documents in the first place.

Of course, if someone hacks into their email system, and somehow managed to guess/find their password, they can access and e-sign the document, but that can happen with "wet" signatures if someone intercepts mail, forges a signature and submits it! There's not a central database of wet signatures, so HMRC don't check "wet" signatures on paper documents either. (In reality, banks don't routinely check "wet" signatures on cheques etc either).

There is so much more to an online application that can indicate fraud, that's even before you get to an esignature. Obviously there will be some that slip through the net but other checks can be completed to see if someone is a victim or fraud or has simply been coerced.

The key element is that an ‘electronic signature’ is not just a name written in a ‘written’ font nor an electronic scan of a handwritten signature but that an ‘electronic signature’ is a verifiable ‘signature’ which can also be subject to a witness etc

The technology exists to do this, and the linked document highlights the need for suitable electronic signatures to allow for them to be recognised and binding

I work in a role where I have to obtain signatures from multiple people worldwide all the time. The advent of electronic signatures has made it so much easier, quicker and less costly.

E-signature is legally binding because laws like the eIDAS Regulation in the UK and EU, and the E-SIGN Act in the US, confirm that electronic signatures hold the same legal weight as handwritten ones.

As long as there’s clear intent to sign and a reliable way to prove who signed, it’s valid. Even a simple typed name or click-to-sign can count, though more advanced methods add extra security.

There was a relatively recent case that even an emoji can be legal proof of entering into a contract. Such as if someone texts a quotation and the recipient replies with a thumbs up emoji, it can count as contract offer and acceptance! So even an e-signature may not be required in some circumstances, let alone a wet signature.

And of course, even on paper, you don't need it to be a signature. Even legal documents can provide for "a mark" such as an X rather than a signature.

At the end of the day a signature, wet or electronic, is just a demonstration of acceptance of a contract/legal document. Any other form of "proof" of acceptance is just as legally acceptable.

The courts have previously agreed that the following are all valid signatures:

• signing with an X
• signing with initials
• using a stamp of a handwritten signature
• printing a name
• signing with a mark, even when the signatory is capable of writing their name
• an unambiguous description of the signatory

Given all these are acceptable, it is no surprise that an electronic signature is also acceptable. As others have said, may systems that support electronic signatures have plenty of technical precautions in place to ensure that they can prove the identity of the signatory.

At least it's not as bad as the "I agree" button on web sites, I read once it would take several lifetimes to read through all the t&c of the common websites.

What's the issue? You still have to sign the form and scan the signature onto the document. Why is that different to someone signing a form while sitting on the lavatory?
Anyone could sign a paper form if they wanted to scam.

Apparently one of the newer blags from Freeman on the Land/Sovereign Citizen/Don't Have to Pay My TV Licence types is saying that they don't have to accept any warrant/court order that isn't signed by a 'wet ink signature'.

Absolute nonsense, obviously. Funny though.

Nope, lots of organisations don't need a scan of a signature on the document anymore. Ticking a box on a computer screen is just as valid as formal acceptance of a document/contract, etc.

I've just bought a property and never had to "sign" a document, either in wet ink or by finger/mouse/scan on a device/computer.

Likewise son has just "signed" a lease for his flat by ticking an online "accept" box.

Likewise just opened a couple of new bank accounts and a pension account, again, no "signature" at all, neither ink on paper, nor a scan/image of a signature.

Like others have said, a signature (or scan/image) really isn't a legal requirement.