Topic: Need help with research project on blockchain / immutability. (Read 130 times)
IF YOU WANT I CAN HEP
Bump?
After contacting multiple law firms, over 50 professors, and historians all over the country over the past few weeks, I have received zero replies. So either no one cares or I did indeed somehow imagine this and went on believing it for many years.
After contacting multiple law firms, over 50 professors, and historians all over the country over the past few weeks, I have received zero replies. So either no one cares or I did indeed somehow imagine this and went on believing it for many years.
You have look into the laws based per country, most countries now a day allow for electronic signature and for agreements over the internet to be legally binding.
The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act governs these laws.
(1) a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; and
(2) a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.
read more below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_in_Global_and_National_Commerce_Act
A good way to do a thesis on this is starting with something like Terms and Conditions its a legally binding contract that most people are binded by when registering a website and do not even know it.
Then you go on with something else like legally binding agreements of electronic forms of communications can be a valid form of agreement and most people are unware so such as e-mail communication.
take a look below
https://www.legal.io/guide/551c797e777777655d8e0000/What-Do-You-Mean-We-Have-A-Contract-How-to-Prevent-an-Email-Exchange-From-Inadvertently-Becoming-a-Binding-Contract
“For Discussion Purposes Only And Cannot Be Used To Create A Binding Contract.”
“This Email Is Not An Acceptable Offer And Doesn’t Evidence Any Intention By The Sender To Enter Into A Contract.”
or at the end of an email in a more narrative form:
“Unless and until we agree on other material terms regarding this potential transaction and both sign a written agreement reflecting them, it’s not my intent for our email exchanges to constitute a binding contract.”
“Since I’m simultaneously copying my client(s)/attorney on this email (and its attachments), I must of course reserve their rights of review, comment and revision in connection with its/their content”.
“This email is nonbinding unless and until a more formal and definitive written contract between the parties is signed.”
Other ways to avoid emails creating or modifying a contract include:
Written contracts should clearly state their amendment and waiver requirements, including that emails can’t amend or waive;
Avoiding making unconditional statements or promises in them;
Not using contract terms such as “offer,” “agree” and “accept”;
If proposed terms are subject to contingencies, such as board or management approval, state this;
When discussing an executed contract, be carefully making statements that go beyond the language in the that contract;
such clauses such as the one above must be put in place to prevent agreeing to a legally binding agreement in which you weren't aware of.
Then for your next paragraph you can go with how now blockchain is used for legally binding agreements in which are immutable and so forth.
good luck on your paper.
Thanks for the info, but I'm looking specifically for information pertaining to the impact-print debate. The majority of the rest of my paper is already complete.
Bump?
After contacting multiple law firms, over 50 professors, and historians all over the country over the past few weeks, I have received zero replies. So either no one cares or I did indeed somehow imagine this and went on believing it for many years.
After contacting multiple law firms, over 50 professors, and historians all over the country over the past few weeks, I have received zero replies. So either no one cares or I did indeed somehow imagine this and went on believing it for many years.
You have look into the laws based per country, most countries now a day allow for electronic signature and for agreements over the internet to be legally binding.
The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act governs these laws.
(1) a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; and
(2) a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.
read more below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_in_Global_and_National_Commerce_Act
A good way to do a thesis on this is starting with something like Terms and Conditions its a legally binding contract that most people are binded by when registering a website and do not even know it.
Then you go on with something else like legally binding agreements of electronic forms of communications can be a valid form of agreement and most people are unware so such as e-mail communication.
take a look below
https://www.legal.io/guide/551c797e777777655d8e0000/What-Do-You-Mean-We-Have-A-Contract-How-to-Prevent-an-Email-Exchange-From-Inadvertently-Becoming-a-Binding-Contract
“For Discussion Purposes Only And Cannot Be Used To Create A Binding Contract.”
“This Email Is Not An Acceptable Offer And Doesn’t Evidence Any Intention By The Sender To Enter Into A Contract.”
or at the end of an email in a more narrative form:
“Unless and until we agree on other material terms regarding this potential transaction and both sign a written agreement reflecting them, it’s not my intent for our email exchanges to constitute a binding contract.”
“Since I’m simultaneously copying my client(s)/attorney on this email (and its attachments), I must of course reserve their rights of review, comment and revision in connection with its/their content”.
“This email is nonbinding unless and until a more formal and definitive written contract between the parties is signed.”
Other ways to avoid emails creating or modifying a contract include:
Written contracts should clearly state their amendment and waiver requirements, including that emails can’t amend or waive;
Avoiding making unconditional statements or promises in them;
Not using contract terms such as “offer,” “agree” and “accept”;
If proposed terms are subject to contingencies, such as board or management approval, state this;
When discussing an executed contract, be carefully making statements that go beyond the language in the that contract;
such clauses such as the one above must be put in place to prevent agreeing to a legally binding agreement in which you weren't aware of.
Then for your next paragraph you can go with how now blockchain is used for legally binding agreements in which are immutable and so forth.
good luck on your paper.
Bump?
After contacting multiple law firms, over 50 professors, and historians all over the country over the past few weeks, I have received zero replies. So either no one cares or I did indeed somehow imagine this and went on believing it for many years.
After contacting multiple law firms, over 50 professors, and historians all over the country over the past few weeks, I have received zero replies. So either no one cares or I did indeed somehow imagine this and went on believing it for many years.
I am working on a graduate thesis on blockchain utility, and I'm struggling to find a certain reference.
I remember there once being a debate as to whether or not non-impact printed documents could be considered legally binding. The philosophy at the time was that only documents or contracts printed with impact keys (such as from a typewriter) were considered legally binding, but documents printed with ink or laser jet were not considered legally binding due to the perceived ease in manipulating them at a later date.
Can someone tell me when this was, which legislation was impacted, and/or who was arguing on either side? I know I didn't just imagine that this was once a thing.
Thanks!
I remember there once being a debate as to whether or not non-impact printed documents could be considered legally binding. The philosophy at the time was that only documents or contracts printed with impact keys (such as from a typewriter) were considered legally binding, but documents printed with ink or laser jet were not considered legally binding due to the perceived ease in manipulating them at a later date.
Can someone tell me when this was, which legislation was impacted, and/or who was arguing on either side? I know I didn't just imagine that this was once a thing.
Thanks!
Jump to: