From WhyNotWiki

[edit] Should statements made via e-mail be legally binding?

Ihre Nachricht wurde empfangen. Vielen Dank.

-- InvestitionsBank des Landes Brandenburg Steinstraße 104 106 14480 Potsdam Webseite: http://www.ilb.de

Handelsregister Potsdam HRA 2414

Bitte nutzen Sie die E-Mailverbindung mit uns ausschließlich zum Informationsaustausch. Rechtsgeschäftliche Erklärungen erhalten Sie von uns über dieses Medium nicht. Rechtsverbindliche Bestätigungen geben wir Ihnen gern in Papierform

Please only use e-mail with us for the exchange of information. We do not give legally binding statements through this medium but we will be pleased to give them on paper.

Do they say that because they think e-mails can too easily be forged/altered and therefore it is difficult to know with any certainty that a piece of e-mail used as evidence in a court has not been tampered with?

Hmm, and I suppose words on a paper can't easily be produced by any home computer user's inkjet or laser printer and a signature forged.

Have they considered cryptographically signing those e-mails which they want to be legally binding to prevent tampering with a very high level of security? That's right, I am suggesting that PGP (or other comparable technology) be used to make any important/legally binding statement via e-mail and that, when said pre-condition is met, that e-mail be legally binding, and admissible as evidence in a court of law.

[Project (category)]/[Campaign (category)]: Educate people. Convince people of that. Help it to become the law.

[edit] Should statements over the phone be legally binding?

I opine that they should not be (at least not without written confirmation). Yet apparently Sprint feels differently about this, as they caused me to enter into a 2-year contract by saying something over the phone (which I was not aware was something that caused me to enter into a contract with Sprint).