UNIFORM ELECTRONICTRANSACTIONS ACT (1999)Drafted by theNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERSON UNIFORM STATE LAWSand by itAPPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENTIN ALL THE STATESat itsANNUAL CONFERENCEMEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-EIGHTH YEARIN DENVER, COLORADOJULY 23 – 30, 1999WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTSCopyright© 1999ByNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERSON UNIFORM STATE LAWS1/20/00UNIFORM ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT (1999)The Committee that acted for the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Lawsin preparing the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (1999) was as follows:PATRICIA BRUMFIELD FRY, University of North Dakota, School of Law, P.O. Box 9003,Grand Forks, ND 58201, ChairSTEPHEN Y. CHOW, 30th Floor, One Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108KENNETH W. ELLIOTT, City Place Building, 22nd Floor, 204 N. Robinson Avenue,Oklahoma City, OK 73102HENRY DEEB GABRIEL, JR., Loyola University, School of Law, 526 Pine Street, New Orleans,LA 70118BION M. GREGORY, Office of Legislative Counsel, State Capitol, Suite 3021, Sacramento,CA 95814-4996JOSEPH P. MAZUREK, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 201401, 215 N. Sanders,Helena, MT 59620PAMELA MEADE SARGENT, P.O. Box 846, Abingdon, VA 24212D. BENJAMIN BEARD, University of Idaho, College of Law, 6th and Rayburn, Moscow,ID 83844-2321, ReporterEX OFFICIOGENE N. LEBRUN, P.O. Box 8250, 9th Floor, 909 St. Joseph Street, Rapid City, SD 57709,PresidentHENRY M. KITTLESON, P.O. Box 32092, 92 Lake Wire Drive, Lakeland, FL 33802,Division ChairAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADVISORSC. ROBERT BEATTIE, Plaza VII, 45 S. 7th Street, Suite 3400, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1609,Business Law SectionAMELIA H. BOSS, Tmple University, School of Law, 1719 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia,PA 19122, AdvisorTHOMAS J. SMEDINGHOFF, 130 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60601,Science and Technology SectionEXECUTIVE DIRECTORFRED H. MILLER, University of Oklahoma, College of Law, 300 Timberdell Road, Norman,OK 73019, Executive DirectorWILLIAM J. PIERCE, 1505 Roxbury Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, Executive Director EmeritusCopies of this Act may be obtained from:NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERSON UNIFORM STATE LAWS211 E. Ontario Street, Suite 1300Chicago, Illinois 60611312/915-0195UNIFORM ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT (1999)TABLE OF CONTENTSSECTION 1. SHORT TITLE ........................................................ 4SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS ........................................................ 4SECTION 3. SCOPE ............................................................. 13SECTION 4. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION .......................................... 20SECTION 5. USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES; VARIATION BY AGREEMENT .......................................... 20SECTION 6. CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION ................................... 24SECTION 7. LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS, ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES, AND ELECTRONIC CONTRACTS ........................... 26SECTION 8. PROVISION OF INFORMATION IN WRITING; PRESENTATION OF RECORDS .. 28SECTION 9. ATTRIBUTION AND EFFECT OF ELECTRONIC RECORD AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE ............................................. 31SECTION 10. EFFECT OF CHANGE OR ERROR ...................................... 33SECTION 11. NOTARIZATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................ 37SECTION 12. RETENTION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS; ORIGINALS .................... 38SECTION 13. ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE ........................................ 42SECTION 14. AUTOMATED TRANSACTION ........................................ 42SECTION 15. TIME AND PLACE OF SENDING AND RECEIPT .......................... 44SECTION 16. TRANSFERABLE RECORDS .......................................... 48SECTION 17. CREATION AND RETENTION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND CONVERSION OF WRITTEN RECORDS BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES ......................................................... 56SECTION 18. ACCEPTANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES ......................................... 56SECTION 19. INTEROPERABILITY ................................................ 58SECTION 20. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE ............................................. 61SECTION 21. EFFECTIVE DATE ................................................... 611UNIFORM ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT (1999)PREFATORY NOTEWith the advent of electronic means of communication and informationtransfer, business models and methods for doing business have evolved to takeadvantage of the speed, efficiencies, and cost benefits of electronic technologies. These developments have occurred in the face of existing legal barriers to the legalefficacy of records and documents which exist solely in electronic media. Whetherthe legal requirement that information or an agreement or contract must becontained or set forth in a pen and paper writing derives from a statute of fraudsaffecting the enforceability of an agreement, or from a record retention statute thatcalls for keeping the paper record of a transaction, such legal requirements raise realbarriers to the effective use of electronic media.One striking example of electronic barriers involves so called check retentionstatutes in every State. A study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Bostonidentified more than 2500 different state laws which require the retention ofcanceled checks by the issuers of those checks. These requirements not only imposeburdens on the issuers, but also effectively restrain the ability of banks handling thechecks to automate the process. Although check truncation is validated under theUniform Commercial Code, if the bank’s customer must store the canceled papercheck, the bank will not be able to deal with the item through electronictransmission of the information. By establishing the equivalence of an electronicrecord of the information, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA)removes these barriers without affecting the underlying legal rules and requirements.It is important to understand that the purpose of the UETA is to removebarriers to electronic commerce by validating and effectuating electronic records andsignatures. It is NOT a general contracting statute – the substantive rules ofcontracts remain unaffected by UETA. Nor is it a digital signature statute. To theextent that a State has a Digital Signature Law, the UETA is designed to supportand compliment that statute.A. Scope of the Act and Procedural Approach. The scope of
View Full Document
Unlocking...