At Katz Law Group, we have helped many companies to ensure that their texts do not inadvertently lead to contracts. We can adapt language to your business that prevents you from entering into a contract and allows you to correspond freely without having to think twice about the effects of such communication. Do not hesitate to call us at 508-480-8202. The moral is clear: if you want to make sure you have an enforceable agreement, make sure you get it in a clearly signed handwriting, qualified under the law. Can emails and text messages be a legally binding agreement? A binding contract in principle must consist of four key elements: there must be an offer, the acceptance of that offer, consideration and the intention of both parties to create legal relationships. In New Jersey, business brokerage agreements must be signed in writing (Statute of Frauds). In this case, the commercial broker and the seller communicated by SMS through a business sale and the broker`s commission. They agreed and the seller broke. The real estate agent filed a complaint. Bottom Line: Text messages are ideal for quick communication.
However, if you want to make a text mandatory, state the agreement in one text and ask the other to confirm the agreement and insert their name. It would still be better to conclude the contract by e-mail and ensure that the necessary conditions and signatures are clear. Of course, the best is to create a digitally signed document. Some oral contracts are also enforceable. However, evolving technology contributes to confusion about existing contracts. Many wonder whether agreements made via email or SMS are legally binding. The advice of a lawyer specializing in business law helps to answer complex questions about contracts and the validity of the contract. The simplest solution to respond to this advance in corporate culture is to say that text messages cannot create legally binding contracts. This is exactly what California has done by adding to the Fraud Act (Assembly Bill 2136) a new language that explicitly states that a text message is considered an email message of a fleeting nature, insufficient to create a real estate transfer contract.  While there is a limited exception that can make text messages an essential reflection in the design of the contract, the explicit exclusion of text messages in the statute resolves much of the potential ambiguities, both for California companies and lawyers.
Because of the novelty of SMS distribution and the uncertainty that exists in the legal climate, businesses and lawyers are better served when they gather in anticipation of a winter in Massachusetts, despite the fascination of the sun in California. California`s legislation is unique, while Massachusetts` legislative history is almost identical to that of many other states and differs primarily based on case law. Accordingly, it is reasonable in states that have adopted the uniform Electronics Transactions Act to think that courts can develop their own jurisprudence in a manner comparable to that of Massachusetts. Both the E-Sign Act and the analysis of the jurisprudence of St. John`s Holdings v. Two Electronics LLC make it clear that text messages can be used to send and adopt unilateral and bilateral agreements. The term “contradict” should be used whenever a binding agreement is negotiated or refined by SMS. In this way, the intention to negotiate or modify the offer is clearly understood. Business owners use email systems for a number of reasons, including their desire to improve customer responsiveness, improve their employees` ability to provide improved customer service, and the need to keep their business on the cutting edge of technology.
However, there are drawbacks of these programs, including the possibility that a customer`s live chat with an employee accidentally binds a company, resulting in unintended consequences. . . .