Sentences with phrase «uniform electronic transaction»

The terms used in this Listing Agreement, including but not limited to Electronic Signature, should be construed in accordance with the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act as adopted by the State of Pennsylvania.

In 1999, the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act [2](UETA) was introduced formally recognizing electronic records and signatures.

Because Illinois did not adopt the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act, it is necessary to look to the terms of the Electronic Commerce Security Act [4] for local area guidance.

The American equivalent to the Uniform Act, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, did not exclude land transfers.

Rocket Lawyer enables you to send and receive valid e-signatures in the United States under the 2000 U.S. Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) as adopted by individual states.

Every state except New York, Illinois, and Washington has adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, and those three states have adopted their own electronic signature laws.

In Barwick v. Government Employee Insurance Co., Inc., 2011 Ark. 128 (March 31, 2011), the court properly held that the state's version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act disposed of the question in the affirmative.

Laws pertaining to when you could use an eSignature were first introduced in 1999 under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.

Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (adopted by 47 states), transactions may be conducted by electronic means, such that the act gives legal recognition to electronic signatures, records and contracts.

It relied on the Utah version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) to do so.

Yesterday, the Utah Supreme Court, interpreting Utah's version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) held that electronic «signatures» gathered through the website of an independent candidate for Utah state governor are valid to put the candidate's name on Utah's November ballot.

As of early 2000, two states — California and Pennsylvania --- had passed e-commerce bills based on the model legislation, called the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.

California has adopted a version of the new model Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), and working groups are formulating similar legislation in other states.

Not exact matches

That said, it would seem prudent for a jurisdiction that adopted the Uniform Wills Act to amend its electronic commerce / transactions statute about its applicability to wills, just to avoid this debate.

The Uniform Wills Act provision quoted above would operate in most provinces in conjunction with an electronic transaction statute based on the Uniform Electronic Comelectronic transaction statute based on the Uniform Electronic ComElectronic Commerce Act.

A couple of updates: In May 2011, the Northwest Territories adopted its Electronic Transactions Act SNWT 2011 c. 13, so all three territories have the Uniform Act, essentially, along with the common law provinces.

The Uniform Law Conference's decision to exclude these land transfers reflected the same decision made in then - recent statutes in Australia (see for example the regulations under the Electronic Transactions Act, 2000 of New South Wales) and Singapore (see s. 4 and Schedule 1 of the Electronic Transactions Act.)

The ESIGN Act implements a national uniform standard for all electronic transactions that encourages the use of electronic signatures, electronic contracts and electronic records by providing legal certainty for these instruments when signatories comply with its standards.

BC's Electronic Transactions Act says — in the model of the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act — that where the law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies that reElectronic Transactions Act says — in the model of the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act — that where the law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies that reElectronic Commerce Act — that where the law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies that reelectronic signature satisfies that requirement.

We (the folks who wrote the uniform law) considered the voice as a kind of biometric and saw no reason in principle to exclude them (though Australia's electronic Transactions Act limited their use, as I recall)

At the 2011 Uniform Law Conference of Canada his paper «Real Estate Transactions in the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act» suggested the time had come to remove the real estate exclusion.