Although Ray Tomlinson is credited with inventing email as far back as 1972 if anyone then had suggested that in less than 40 years email and other electronic communications would be widely accepted as a way of transacting business their comments would almost certainly have been met with at least a modicum of derision. However, this is exactly the situation that has come to pass.
Forrester Research recently estimated that the annual growth in demand for the use of electronic signatures was just in excess of 50%. Current predictions by specialist market analysts suggest that by 2017 somewhere in the order of a staggering 700 million transactions will be authorised by electronic signatures each
The regulatory framework for recognition of electronic communications including electronic and digital signatures in Australia is found in the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) (the Act).
The Act facilitates the use of electronic transactions, recognises the importance of the information economy to economic and social prosperity in Australia and aims to promote confidence in the use of electronic transactions and enable business and the community to use electronic communications in their dealings with government.
The Act sets out a framework for signatures in electronic communications including the requirement that a method be used to identify both the person giving the electronic signature and that person’s intention in respect of the information communicated.
The Act also requires that the identification method used must be appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic communication was generated or communicated, in light of all the circumstances of the particular matter including any relevant agreement. Alternatively, the method used must be proven to have in fact fulfilled the identification and intention requirements either by itself or together with further evidence.
Notwithstanding our increasing reliance on electronic signatures the recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court in Williams Group Australia Pty Ltd v Crocker highlights that there are still risks associated with this mode of communication.
Mr Crocker was a builder and the director of Image Designer Homes Pty Ltd (‘IDH’). IDH was established in 2010 and manufactured, supplied and installed pre-manufactured building modules. IDH Modular Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (‘IDHM’) was a related company established in June 2012. The three directors of IDHM were Mr Caleb Brooks, Mr Lee Crocker and Mr Mark Walsh.
In around May 2012 Mr Brooks advised Mr Crocker that he had set up an account with HelloFax which would enable the directors to upload an electronic signature which could then be applied to documents electronically. This system would allow the IDHM directors to sign documents electronically when it was not convenient to do so in person.
Mr Crocker initially accessed the HelloFax system on 26 June 2012. However, he never changed the password for his account. The password had been set up by Mr Brooks. IDHM opened a trading account with the Williams Group Australia Pty Ltd (‘Williams Group’) in July 2012. The application for the trading account ostensibly bore the signature of each of the three directors. However, the Court accepted that Mr Crocker never accessed HelloFax for the purpose of applying his signature for any application to the Williams Group.
By July 2013 IDHM was indebted to the Williams Group for the amount of $889,534.35. The Williams Group commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW seeking the enforcement of guarantees that had allegedly been given by all three of the directors of IDHM to secure the terms of the trade credit agreement.
Mr Crocker claimed that he had neither executed not authorised the execution of the guarantee with the Williams Group on his behalf. He also submitted that he no knowledge that he had agreed to signed up to such a substantial potential liability.
The Williams Group argued that Mr Crocker had given actual authorisation or, at the very least if actual authorisation had not been given, Mr Crocker’s subsequent conduct effectively ratified the execution of his signature and that even if Mr Crocker had not actually applied the electronic signature to the guarantee it should be enforced against him.
In support of these arguments the Williams Group submitted firstly that by failing to change the default password set up on the HelloFax account by Mr Brooks, Mr Crocker had impliedly authorised Mr Brooks or any other person who received the login details set up by him, to execute documents on Mr Crocker’s behalf. In the alternative, they argued that even if no actual authorisation was given the fact that Mr Crocker had been sent a confirmation email should be sufficient to show that he had subsequently ratified the use of his signature.
Mr Crocker gave evidence that he did not recall ever seeing any emails of this nature.
The Court was not satisfied that any actual authority had been given and found that the evidence provided fell short of anything revealing actual intention. In addition, the Court accepted Mr Crocker’s evidence that he did not in fact ever see any emails which would have supported the alternative claim of ratification.
Important points to take from the decision
There are four main points we can take from this decision:
As the use of electronic agreements become ever more popular, questions around the proper use of electronic signatures are likely to continue to be an ongoing issue. This is an area of law that we have particular expertise in and we would be happy to discuss any questions you may have.
If you or someone you know wants more information or needs help or advice, please contact us on (02) 9274 8820 or email email@example.com.