Enforceability of Electronic Signatures in Florida and Beyond
The two key components for compliance with the UETA is a clear expression of intent and consent of the parties to proceed electronically.
June 01, 2020 at 09:12 AM
5 minute read
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unexpected shift for business to operate in virtual environments requiring the need for electronic signatures. Most written agreements require a signature to be enforceable. Since contracts and their legal enforceability are determined by state law, most states, including Florida, have adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). Under the UETA electronic signatures have the same legal effect as traditional handwritten signatures. Fla. Stat. Section 668.50(7)(b) ("a contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in the formation of the contract"). A signature can be any mark or symbol that a party makes with the intent to authenticate a record or contract. As such, a valid signature can be written, stamped, printed, typed, initialed or impressed onto paper in other forms. In addition, under the UETA, an electronic signature can be an electronic sound, symbol, or a process that includes both, that is "attached or logically associated with the contract, and executed or adopted with the intent to sign the record." It is important to note, however, that the UETA does not apply to every transaction. In order for the UETA to apply, each party to the contract must agree to conduct the transaction electronically. Therefore, the two key components for compliance with the UETA is a clear expression of intent and consent of the parties to proceed electronically.
Additionally, the Federal Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN) provides protections to ensure the validity and legal effect of electronic contract and signatures used in interstate or foreign commerce. Under E-SIGN, "a signature, contract or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; and a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation." Similar to the UETA, E-SIGN provides that an electronic signature "means an electronic sound, symbol or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record." Unless a state law complies with the limited exceptions provided under E-SIGN, E-SIGN preempts state statutes such as the UETA. For example, E-SIGN does not apply to contracts or transactions subject to laws governing wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts; adoption, divorce, or other family law matters; and the UCC, except for the sale of goods, waiver of a claim for breach of contract and leases.
Under E-SIGN and the UETA, the intent of the party to sign the contract using an electronic signature is key to determining whether the signature is valid and enforceable. To determine whether a signature is valid and creates an enforceable contract, courts generally consider whether the signing party executed or adopted the signature with the present intent to authenticate the contract.
Where parties have agreed to sign a contract electronically, the courts look to whether the signature is logically affixed to the document. Courts have generally found electronic signatures to be valid, enforceable, and having the same legal effect as manually written signatures in emails, faxes, text messages and other electronic processes like Adobe. For example, in 2019 in the case of Starace v. Lexington Law Firm, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California found that a valid agreement was made where a party replied "agree" via text message, and the other party thereafter inserted his electronic signature into the agreement. Likewise, in 2019 in the case Decisive Innovations v. Eel River Organics, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recognized that an electronic PDF note is an enforceable contract under the Florida UETA.
Key Takeaways:
- Electronic signatures carry the same legal force and validly as manually written signatures.
- The laws governing electronic signatures do not require any particular method of affixing an electronic signature to a contract.
- The e-signature can be any electronic sound, symbol or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record and be capable of being retained and reproduced.
- Electronic signatures include signatures in emails, PDFs, and faxes and digital signatures that are obtained by processes such as DocuSign and Adobe Sign.
- The electronic signature must be affixed to or logically associated with the contract or agreement.
- The party executing the agreement must do so with an intent to sign or authenticate the agreement.
- The parties must consent to the use of electronic signatures.
Ashleigh C. McKenzie and Donnie M. King are litigation associates in Akerman's Miami office.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
- 2With DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
- 3In-House Legal Network The L Suite Acquires Legal E-Learning Platform Luminate+
- 4In Police Shooting Case, Kavanaugh Bleeds Blue and Jackson ‘Very Very Confused’
- 5Trump RTO Mandates Won’t Disrupt Big Law Policies—But Client Expectations Might
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250