This type of clause has led to many disputes in the past, as the parties sometimes accept and claim that a written agreement has been amended after a meeting, telephone conversation or agitation. It is only later that the parties will know that nothing they have agreed to has any legal effect since it was not signed in writing or by the parties to the agreement. THE UETA provides that a law that requires a written registration, a set of electronic data is in accordance with the law… and a law requires a signature, an electronic signature complies with the law. The Esign Act has a similar language. So an e-mail is clearly an instrument written according to the law, but is an e-mail a signature? As long as the data must be used as a signature by the user in an email and are logically connected to other data in the email, the condition of an electronic signature is fulfilled. Following a dispute, the parties then agreed to denounce the various agreements by e-mail exchange. Some time after the alleged termination, one of the parties challenged the validity of the termination of the agreements on the basis of the non-variation clauses. In essence, the party argued that the e-mail exchange was not “reduced to writing and signing” and was therefore contrary to the requirements of the non-variation clause. The standard clauses without amendment to the agreements are intended to ensure that any consensual modification or termination of the contract is formally agreed upon by the parties, generally requiring that this amendment or deletion be reduced to the letter and signature by the parties. In a world where communication between the parties is primarily via e-mail, the question arises as to whether an email exchange between the parties to an agreement would meet the standard requirements imposed by non-variation clauses. On March 30, 2017, a recent case before the Court of Appeals of Texas (Khoury V. Tomlinson) decided that “even a name or email address can be interpreted in a field “by” so that it can be executed or accepted by a person intending to sign the data set and act as a signature .

However, oral agreements are far from ideal and, in general, people will cut their agreements to the letter and sign the same thing. The question is whether the amendments to these written agreements can then be made or whether they must be written and signed. Much has been written about the requirements for a valid change in the terms of a written agreement between the parties, particularly where a written agreement contains a so-called non-variation clause. The court confirmed that s13 (1) of the Electronic Communications Act, No. 25 of 2002 (ECTA), required the use of an extended electronic signature on an e-mail if a signature is required by law. On the other hand, if the parties to a transaction impose the obligation to sign into an agreement, but do not specify the nature of the signature to be used, s13 (3) of the ECTA finds that this requirement is met when a method is used to identify the person and indicate the person`s consent to the information transmitted, and taking into account all the relevant circumstances at the time of the application of the method , the method was just as reliable and appropriate for the purposes of applying the method. for which the information was passed on. After hearing the argument of the courts concluded that the cancellation of the e-mail was valid and binding. In its decision, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) referred to the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 2002 (ECTA), which recognizes electronic transactions and data messages as forms of communication (for example.

B”Data generated, sent, received or stored electronically).