fbpx

You are viewing our site as a Broker, Switch Your View:

Agent | Broker     Reset Filters to Default     Back to List
You have viewed all your free articles this month


Due to the ongoing situation with Covid-19, we are offering 3 months free on the agent monthly membership with coupon code: COVID-19A

UNLIMITED ACCESS

With an RE Technology membership you'll be able to view as many articles as you like, from any device that has a valid web browser.

Purchase Account

NOT INTERESTED?

RE Technology lets you freely read 5 pieces of content a Month. If you don't want to purchase an account then you'll be able to read new content again once next month rolls around. In the meantime feel free to continue looking around at what type of content we do publish, you'll be able sign up at any time if you later decide you want to be a member.

Browse the site

ARE YOU ALREADY A MEMBER?

Sign into your account

E-mail Could Be Binding

January 17 2013

Guest contributor Richard D. Vetstein of REALTORĀ®Mag says:

realtormag email liabilityImagine you're negotiating a purchase transaction by e-mail with the real estate agent representing the buyer. The price has been agreed to, and you're working out the buyer's financing options. The buyer is able to be preapproved, and you e-mail, "We're almost there." A draft purchase offer is written up and e-mailed to the buyer's agent, but before anything is signed, a better offer comes in. The seller wants to go with that one, so you immediately inform the buyer's agent of the situation. The buyer is upset and wants to enforce the deal. Much to your horror, the e-mails you exchanged may be enough for the buyer to sue to enforce the deal. This was the case under a ruling last year in Massachusetts.

In that case, Feldberg, et al. v. Coxall, attorneys representing the buyer and seller exchanged a series of e-mails about the deal, the last one attaching a revised, but unsigned, offer to purchase. When the seller pulled out of the deal, the buyer sued, claiming the deal had been sealed in the last e-mail.

The seller argued that nothing had been signed, as required under a law called the Statute of Frauds, which varies by state but generally requires certain agreements to be signed, and sought dismissal of the claim. The judge ruled against dismissal, though, saying that, under a state law called the Massachusetts Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (similar laws exist in other states), an e-mail signature block or even the "from" portion of the e-mail may constitute a valid electronic signature in cases where the parties are conducting the transaction electronically, as these parties by all appearances were doing. The judge denied the seller's motion to dismiss, opening the door for the court to look at whether the e-mails in fact constituted a binding agreement.

TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY LOGIN OR REGISTER.