Question

In the article, Judge Rules Lehman Settlement, Affirmed in Emails, Is Enforceable, it states, “We appreciate your consideration in allowing Shinhan Bank additional time to consider your settlement proposal in this matter, which we are pleased to report that Shinhan has agreed to accept,” a lawyer for Shinhan wrote in an April 20, 2016, email to the mediator. Court papers show Lehman and Shinhan engaged in back-and-forth emails for several weeks, and on June 28, 2016 a lawyer for Shinhan emailed a lawyer for Lehman to say, “Shinhan just confirmed that they have completed their internal approval process” and that the settlement would be signed within days. Later that day, the bankruptcy court issued an order dismissing the litigation between the two banks in expectation of the settlement.  But Shinhan never signed the agreement nor was the settlement amount wired to Lehman.”  Would an e-mail be sufficient to substantiate an agreement, enough that it would not require a signature for a deal to be made?  Why or why not?  Please support your findings.

Answer 1

Yes, e-mails would be sufficient to substantiate an agreement and it would not require a signature for a deal to be made. The Uniform Electronics Transactions Act (UETA) establishes the legal equivalence of electronic records and signatures with paper writings and manually signed signatures to remove the barrier to electronic commerce. The section 7 of UETA provides that an electronic records or signature can be sufficient to provide enforceability of the contract. In this case, Lehman and Shinhan engaged on back- and –forth e-mail communication for weeks and they have confirmed in the end that the settlement would be signed within days based on which the bankruptcy court dismissed the litigation between the two banks. The typewritten name of the parties in the e-mail is sufficient to be a signature to satisfy the statute of frauds and enforce the contract. Hence the e-mail is sufficient to make the agreement valid.