NationalNotary.org can tailor its content to your state or territory. Simply select your location within the 'Choose State' list.
Skip the Navigation Home Login Join the NNA FAQs Become a Notary My Account Contact Us Page Site Map Products Index News Index Privacy Statement Site Map By State Sitemap
 NNA Home | Join the NNA | FAQs |  Login 
Thursday, Sep. 2, 2010
    OREGON          
NNA Legal Professionals Section » Law Databases » eSignature/eNotarization Laws

eSignature and eNotarization Laws

  • Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (PDF)
  • State eSignature and eNotarization Laws
  • United Nations Commission on International Trade Law

  • United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Signatures (PDF)
  • Attorney General Opinions

  • California (PDF)

  • May county recorders implement electronic recordation of documents in their respective jurisdictions?

  • New York (PDF)

  • There is a substantial possibility that E-SIGN does not preempt Article 9 of the RPL or otherwise obligate county recording officers to accept for recordation a filing that contains only an electronic signature but lacks what you term an "original signature."

  • Texas (PDF)

  • Opinion No. GA-0228
    Whether a county clerk must accept for recording a paper copy, containing printed images of signatures or a printed image of a notary seal, of an electronic record of a real estate transaction (RQ-0186-GA)

    Legal Cases

  • Rosenfeld v. Zerneck
    The case involved a debate about whether a contract for the sale of real property can be tendered via email. The plaintiffs sent an email message indicating their interest to purchase a property for $3.5 million in cash. The defendant sent a reply email agreeing to the offer and "signed" it by typing his first name. The defendant argued that the email he sent was preliminary and not a firm agreement.
    The full opinion can be read here. The relevant portions of the opinion are highlighted.


  • Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International
    Both companies entered into a contract involving the transfer of grapes from Mexico to England. However, Sea-Land's agent put the grapes on the wrong train, the designated cargo ship departed for England before the grapes arrived and Lozen ended up selling the grapes in the U.S. at a lower price. Lozen presented as evidence an admission of a "party opponent" in the form of a Sea-Land company email written by a Sea-Land employee and forwarded to Lozen.
    The Ninth Circuit Court opinion can be read here. The relevant portions of the opinion are highlighted.

  • ABOUT SSL CERTIFICATES
    ©2010 National Notary Association. All rights reserved.
    Phone: 1-800-US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827)     Fax: 1-800-833-1211
    Contact Us     Product Index    
    Privacy Statement
    BBB Reliability Program Logo