electronically, as well. There is, interestingly, a long history of contracting electronically in the U.S. In fact, one of the very first means of negotiating was by morse code, another was via telegraph and telegram, and, when phone lines laced the country, it was only a matter of time before fax lines, and faxed signatures, were to follow. National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws, then, to codify what had been assumed electronic signatures, like faxed signatures, are a mark intended to identify the sender and, thus, should be given the same effect. that contracts with electronic signatures may not be denied legal effect. case, and the Act renders electronic signatures as good as ink ones. The Conference proposed the UETA for states to enact, so that e-signature laws on the state level would be uniform. It works in unison with E-SIGN to bring contract formation into the modern area of transacting business by email. Perhaps this is why 47 states adopted the proposed law without significant changes, and the three that did not New York, Washington and Illinois adopted similar laws within a few years of E-SIGN's enactment. Internationally, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the though eliminating the merchant's unilateral contract rule and certain parts of the "knockout" rule for contract formation, is largely in accord and exists between 83 countries, at least 56 of them without any changes. traditional signature is replaced with any mark, symbol or sound intended to identify the sender. the court can glean the parties' intent, objectively, from the parties' course of dealings, course of conduct and course of performance, as well as the term's common usage in the parties' trade or industry. What is not stated explicitly, the court can find implicitly and therein lies the problem. While an email signature may not have been controversial, what has become controversial is the sometimes slippery slope to contract formation with a click of "SEND." Ambiguities and the Court via email can come as a surprise to parties who negotiate via email even more for companies that hold employees out as having the authority to negotiate but not necessarily "seal the deal." And even more when they commit to an agreement but disagree upon unstated, or nonessential, terms. Here enters the court. Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Thyssenkrupp Materials, NA. for the sale of steel by email. When the company failed to deliver the product, the buyer sued. The seller claimed no contract had been formed because the parties had no physical writing and did not agree to transact business electronically, as they must under the UETA. The court viewed the parties' emails and concluded that, as a "practical matter," if "the parties reached an agreement electronically, they will likely also show that the parties agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means." The UETA "authorizes parties `to agree' to conduct transactions by email and directs courts determining whether parties have so agreed to consider the `surrounding circumstances, including the parties' conduct." Thus, the court can view email negotiations to determine whether parties, by their conduct, agree to contract electronically and, if so, what they agreed to do. v Grede Holdings, CI 14-3963, Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio. In this automotive case, the buyer and the seller disagreed whether |