We send emails so casually and with such informality, even in the business environment, that it is easy to forget that they may carry significant legal consequences. It is only prudent to bear in mind that even emails written in the most conversational style may create legal obligations no less binding than a more conventional written agreement laden with legalese and signed with all formalities.<\/p>\n
If a business wants to entirely avoid the possibility of having emails treated as binding amendments to existing contracts, the best approach is to be as clear and direct as possible on the subject by including language in contracts to the effect that emails do not count as signed writings for purposes of any contract amendments.<\/p>\n
Cautionary Case
\nA recent cautionary case on point involved an individual who sold his public relations firm to a global communications company. The deal included an employment contract under which the seller was to continue as chairman and CEO of the new company for three years. Soon, the new company was losing money and the seller was presented with the option of either leaving or taking on new responsibilities.<\/p>\n
Email then entered the picture when an employee of the communications company sent yet another option to the seller in an email that spelled out how the seller would allocate his time. The seller replied by email that he enthusiastically accepted that proposal. For his part, the representative of the communications company replied by email that he was thrilled with the seller\u2019s decision to accept the new offer. In both emails the sender had typed his name after the message.<\/p>\n
The seller later had a change of heart and sued to enforce the terms of the original employment agreement. An appellate court ruled against him on the ground that the exchange of emails on the new employment proposal constituted a binding amendment to the employment agreement. This was so even though the original agreement required that any changes had to be in the form of signed writings.<\/p>\n
The court reasoned that the emails effectively were signed writings because the parties\u2019 names appeared at the end of the emails, signifying an intent to authenticate the preceding contents of the messages. Likewise, the emails also were signed writings for purposes of the Statute of Frauds, which requires certain contracts to be in writing in order to be enforceable. In short, when the seller and his email correspondent clicked \u201csend\u201d and \u201creply,\u201d they were sealing a new deal that the seller could not avoid even though it was in an electronic form.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
We send emails so casually and with such informality, even in the business environment, that it is easy to forget that they may carry significant legal consequences. It is only prudent to bear in mind that even emails written in … Continue reading