New York Court Holds that Email Satisfies Statute of Frauds
2/1/2005
A New York court has held that an email sent by a defendant accepting the plaintiffs' offer to purchase real property, in which email the defendant had typed his name, satisfies the requirement of the statute of frauds that contracts for the transfer of an interest in real property be evidenced by a writing. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim because the emails the parties had exchanged failed to contain all the essential terms of a contract for the sale of real property.
In Rosenfeld v. Zerneck, 4 Misc 3d 193, 776 NYS2d 458 (2004), the plaintiffs made a cash offer to purchase the defendant's house. The defendant responded by email, in which he accepted the plaintiffs' offer, set a date by which the sale must close, and stated that the offer was not subject to any financing contingences. A written contract of sale was to follow. At the bottom of the email, the defendant typed his name. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court held that his email satisfied the requirements of the statute of frauds that contracts for the sale of real property be evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged.
An open issue appears to be whether an email sent by an individual from a computer, using software programmed to automatically list his or her name and contact information in the email, would also satisfy the statute of frauds.
Jere M. Webb
Stoel Rives LLP
jmwebb@stoel.com
Although this article was from awhile ago I thought I would post it because of the subject concerning the Statute of Frauds which we are currently learning about. As we all know any contract that has to do with land or the selling/purchase of real property is required by the Statute of Frauds to be in written form and signed. It is interesting that the court found the email to satisfy this even though the email was not the actual contract. I would have thought that the signature would only matter if it was on the contract itself, not on an email communication before the final contract. However, if the email contained all of the exact information that would be included in the final contract, the signing at the end would appear to be valid. Something to take away from this case is that anything that is written form, even if it is electronic, can be evidence of a contract and we need to be careful whenever we write our names, even emails.
I am reposting my article as a comment because for some reason when I originally posted it parts of it got cut off in the margins.
ReplyDeleteNew York Court Holds that Email Satisfies Statute of Frauds
2/1/2005
A New York court has held that an email sent by a defendant accepting the plaintiffs' offer to purchase real property, in which email the defendant had typed his name, satisfies the requirement of the statute of frauds that contracts for the transfer of an interest in real property be evidenced by a writing. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim because the emails the parties had exchanged failed to contain all the essential terms of a contract for the sale of real property.
In Rosenfeld v. Zerneck, 4 Misc 3d 193, 776 NYS2d 458 (2004), the plaintiffs made a cash offer to purchase the defendant's house. The defendant responded by email, in which he accepted the plaintiffs' offer, set a date by which the sale must close, and stated that the offer was not subject to any financing contingences. A written contract of sale was to follow. At the bottom of the email, the defendant typed his name. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court held that his email satisfied the requirements of the statute of frauds that contracts for the sale of real property be evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged.
An open issue appears to be whether an email sent by an individual from a computer, using software programmed to automatically list his or her name and contact information in the email, would also satisfy the statute of frauds.
Jere M. Webb
Stoel Rives LLP
jmwebb@stoel.com
Although this article was from awhile ago I thought I would post it because of the subject concerning the Statute of Frauds which we are currently learning about. As we all know any contract that has to do with land or the selling/purchase of real property is required by the Statute of Frauds to be in written form and signed. It is interesting that the court found the email to satisfy this even though the email was not the actual contract. I would have thought that the signature would only matter if it was on the contract itself, not on an email communication before the final contract. However, if the email contained all of the exact information that would be included in the final contract, the signing at the end would appear to be valid. Something to take away from this case is that anything that is written form, even if it is electronic, can be evidence of a contract and we need to be careful whenever we write our names, even emails.