The Electronic Signature Acceleration Platform
The Click-to-Sign Electronic Signature is a legally binding, mobile-first method to handle electronic signatures . It's a faster, more streamlined manner that makes any customer experience even better.
This is a paragraph. Click here to add / edit your own text. This should be used to tell a story and let your users know a little more about your product or service. How can you benefit them?
Why Choose Electronic Signatures?
Click-to-sign Electronic Signatures are just as legal as any other signature
Electronic Signatures are Fast!
Because of our product’s legally binding electronic signature, signing documents is mobile, secure, and made easy--even on the go.
PactSafe offers the Click-to-Sign eSignature: a mobile-first method equipt to handle electronic signatures (esignature). It's a faster, more streamlined way to sign documents that makes any customer experience even better.
Having website and mobile legal terms that are eSignature compliant works to your advantage. Once you begin collecting signatures electronically, you can move all of your documents into the cloud with our document management system. This will allow you to fight through delays in your documenting process, but also eliminate the work of managing versions of documents and long waits to track down past signature records.
"[S]ignif[ying] agreement[s] by clicking on a box on the screen" is "common in Internet commerce." Treiber & Straub, Inc. v. UPS, 474 F.3d 379, 382 (7th Cir. 2007).
If you ever have a reason to defend someone’s acceptance of any contract in court, an eSignature is just as legit as any other signature. The only catch is that you must track when and where the contract was signed as well as who accepted it. You’d have to validate any other signature anyways, so eSignatures are great because they automate that recordkeeping for you!
Some links to learn more about Electronic Signatures
See how a federal court upheld the click-to-sign electronic signatures as E-Sign Act compliant.
"The issue we must yet resolve is whether a subscriber, who "clicks yes" in response to MRIS's electronic TOU prior to uploading copyrighted photographs, has signed a written transfer of the exclusive rights of copyright ownership in those photographs consistent with Section 204(a). Although the Copyright Act itself does not contain a definition of a writing or a signature, much less address our specific inquiry, Congress has provided clear guidance on this point elsewhere, in the E-Sign Act.
The E-Sign Act, aiming to bring uniformity to patchwork state legislation governing electronic signatures and records, mandates that no signature be denied legal effect simply because it is in electronic form. 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1). Additionally, "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." Id. § 7001(a)(2). The E-Sign Act in turn defines "electronic signature" as "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." Id. § 7006(5).
Additionally, courts have held that agreements reached by electronic means are not invalid pursuant to analogous statutory requirements. For example, the Federal Arbitration Act (the "FAA") specifies that its protections for arbitration agreements pertain only to a "written provision" in any contract. 9 U.S.C. § 2. Courts have uniformly applied the E-Sign Act to subsequent interpretations of the FAA's written provision requirement. See, e.g., Campbell v. Gen. Dynamics Gov't Sys. Corp., 407 F.3d 546, 556 (1st Cir.2005) ("[The E-Sign Act] definitively resolves the issue ... as to whether an e-mail agreement to arbitrate is unenforceable under the FAA because it does not satisfy the FAA's `written provision' requirement, 9 U.S.C. § 2. By its plain terms, the E-Sign Act prohibits any interpretation of the FAA's `written provision' requirement that would preclude giving legal effect to an agreement solely on the basis that it was in electronic form."); Specht v. Netscape Comm'cns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 26 n. 11 (2d Cir.2002) (assessing whether clicking to download software created enforceable agreement to arbitrate, and noting that the matter of whether "the agreement is a `written provision' despite being provided to users in a downloadable electronic form ... has been settled by [the E-Sign Act]," although ultimately finding that consumers' clicking "yes" in the context presented in that case did not manifest assent to license terms).
We find this analysis helpful in reaching the same conclusion in the context of the Copyright Act. To invalidate copyright transfer agreements solely because they were made electronically would thwart the clear congressional intent embodied in the E-Sign Act. We therefore hold that an electronic agreement may effect a valid transfer of copyright interests under Section 204 of the Copyright Act. 603*603 Accordingly, we agree with the district court that MRIS is likely to succeed against AHRN in establishing its ownership of copyright interests in the copied photographs."
© 2016 PactSafe, Inc.
PactSafe is the Electronic Signature Acceleration Platform