Software services like DocuSign are helpful in ensuring that your electronic signature meets all the requirements to be valid. The document itself should also include a statement in which each party agrees to the electronic execution of the transaction. Usually included in the “Counterparties” section, here is an example of such language: Before ESIGN and UETA in 2000, Washington was one of the first states to implement its own electronic signature laws. In 1997, the Washington Electronic Authentication Act or WEAA was passed, albeit with a much narrower scope than the ESIGN Act. The WEAA only recognized “digital signatures” that require digital certificates to prove the identity of signatories. However, in July 2019, this state law, the WEAA, was completely repealed because electronic signatures are used in the United States without the need for specific government-regulated digital certificates for the identity of signers. A 2019 court ruling is an example of how an employer has successfully used electronic signatures. In Czerwinski v. Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC, 9 Wn. App.
2d 1047 (unreported) (2019), an employee sued several employment claims, and the employer enforced an arbitration agreement signed electronically by the plaintiff. The claimant challenged the enforceability of his electronic signature, stating that he did not remember the arbitration agreement. The court found that the employer had met the burden of proof that the employee had signed the contract, since the employee had not only received the employee`s typed signature, but also had to enter the last four digits of his social security number and authenticate his electronic signature. In addition, it was clearly stated on the signature page that the signatory is obliged, at the time of signing, to settle all employment-related claims against the employer. The arbitration agreement has been enforced. Curry`s recommendation is that ESIGN likely anticipates Washington State`s current electronic signature regime for interstate transactions, but plays no role in controlling domestic transactions. For those, the old Washington State law must be followed, and it is confusing and probably weighs on the use of electronic signature tools in businesses of all kinds. UETA is a state law that provides a framework for states to regulate the validity of electronic signatures for transactions related to business, commercial (broadly for consumers), and government matters. It has been adopted by 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. All other states have adopted UETA as the standard or, in the case of New York and Illinois, have introduced laws similar to UETA or ESIGN that raise no uncertainty as to whether the state law could be anticipated by federal laws, Curry noted.
The move from Washington`s previous electronic signature to UETA may not have much practical impact on employers. Under both laws, an electronic signature can be used unless state or federal laws require a “wet” signature, and it must have the same legal effect. However, the change is a reminder that employers using electronic signatures should review their practices to ensure that the electronic signatures they receive are legally valid. UETA states that a signature cannot be deprived of its legal effect and enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. The law specifies four necessary elements that must be met for an electronic signature to be valid: Effective June 11, 2020, Washington passed the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”) (RCW1.80.010, et seq.). UETA provides a framework for states to enact national laws on the applicability of electronic signatures and records. Almost all states have adopted some form of UETA. Washington`s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act is set out in Chapter 1.80 of the RCW. The law stipulates that a signature cannot be deprived of its legal effect and enforceability simply because it is in electronic form.
This assumes that four factors are met, including: The federal equivalent of UETA is the Electronic Signatures in Global and Domestic Commerce Act of 2000 (“ESIGN”) (15 U.S.C. 7001, ff.). It applies to all transactions in interstate or foreign trade. In particular, electronic signatures are not suitable for all situations. UETA focuses exclusively on electronic contracting in relation to business, commercial affairs and government matters. UETA does not apply to transactions subject to laws governing the drafting and execution of wills, codicils or testamentary trusts, as well as certain sections of the Uniform Commercial Code, the Uniform Computer Transactions Act and other specific laws identified as exempt in a state`s adopted version of UETA. Companies must always be aware of the differences in case law. UETA advocates are particularly concerned that Washington state, home to e-commerce pioneers such as Amazon.com, Microsoft, and Expedia, lags behind all other states in its e-signature laws. But if these four elements must be respected, they are not the end of the analysis. One of the biggest problems faced by employers in states that have adopted UETA is proving that an electronic signature can be attributed to a specific person.
On June 11, 2020, Washington, along with the majority of states, will pass the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). Previously, Washington was one of three aberrant states that have resisted adoption since the publication of UETA in 1999 and have applied a different law (which has now been repealed). UETA and ESIGN are intended to give parties the flexibility to agree on how they wish to conduct their transactions electronically and are a rule of general application, but if there is one specific law that requires certain formalities, the other law regulates it, so it is important to take into account the laws relating to the specific type of legal document, that you want to run electronically to ensure that there are no other requirements that would limit the ability to execute. Electronic transactions.