Britain's 400 Years of Cyber Law

corbettw writes "There's a news piece in The Register this morning about a British high court ruling about email signatures, and whether they constitute binding contracts. Apparently, the 1677 Statute of Frauds dictates what constitutes a contract, so an email with a disclaimer in the sig could qualify under the language of the statute. Since the statute predates the Constitution of the U.S., a clever lawyer could argue it applies here equally. Maybe there's some truth to the Internet joke 'take off every sig for great justice!'"

I am not a lawyer...

[endrue]

... so does this mean that laws made in Britain prior to the US Constitution are binding now in the USA? I think I am confused and I have not RTA so maybe someone could enlighten me.

- Andrew

Ahem.

[Noryungi]

On the other hand, I think email is not admissible as 'proof' in a court of law, since it is too easy to forge and email and/or muck up the sender information. So, even if an email includes a clever sig and/or statement to the effect that it is a binding contract between the sender and the recipient, it is highly possible it would be thrown out of court, as it does not constitute admissible evidence.

At least, I am almost certain that's the case in my area... Napoleonic code and all that. YMMV, IANAL, etc...

Re:I am not a lawyer...

[leonmergen]

The US inherited the British constitution. The law being talked about was in the British constition before the US inherited that constition, so it's in the US constition too.

Now, the thing being talked about here is, if a British judge made any conclusions in relation to email about that law in their constitution (which is in the US constition too), does that also mean that the same conclusions could be assumed for the US ?

Re:I am not a lawyer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is how it works. Many (most?) of the original 13 colonies adopted a constitution after the US broke from England. I know that Virginia and Massachusetts both have clauses in thier constitutions which say something like: "We adopt the common law of England to the extent that it is not repugnant to the Constitution."

Of course, the Statute of Frauds, isn't really common law since it is, in fact, a Statute. A better analagy would be to say that since England didn't abolish trial by combat until 1815, it is still available in certain states in the US...except for that pesky "repugnant to the Constitution" bit.

And, yes, IAAL.

-cliff

Re:I am not a lawyer...

[martalli]

Actually, thw Unitee Kingdom does not have a set, written constitution like the United States, India, France, and so on. According to the wikipedia, the British Constitution [wikipedia.org] is an "unwritten consitution." That certainly is not to claim that constituional law in the UK is pure chaos. To quote the article:

The lack of a central written constitutional document explaining the fundamental principles of the state and relationship between its institutions and between the people leads some constitutionalists to regard the United Kingdom as having "no (formal) constitution".

In some countries, courts have borrowed precedents from other nations when there was no controlling precendent in their nation. I believe that the Indian Supreme Court referred to some US Supreme Court decisions early on after India's independence. Such extranational precedents surely are meant only for example's sake, rather than being used as a direct controlling law. Common law has been fleshed out pretty well in the last two hundred years, and I doubt such a slight precedent would hold in America.

Isn't the Digital Millenium act and such meant to supersede general common law and common sense? I'm sure that its taken care of somewhere in the DCMA

Re:I am not a lawyer...

[budgenator]

If memory serves me correctly, Michigan's constitution specificaly recognises British Common Law in the order of presidence, so if there is nothing in the state's law's and contitution, the federal laws and constituion, Magna Carta, etc., British Common law applies.