[leakycap]

It seems the negotiations and previous history of transactions is what the court decided was most persuasive, but I'm surprised that a non-signed contract was considered signed with any sort of non-textual response.

Hypothetical response: "Got the contract. Will send a signed copy ASAP!"

Did this accept and sign the contract? What if the sender of that text reads the contract before signing and realizes a mistake, misunderstanding, etc.? That seems to be the defense here, although they lost.

[dragonwriter]

It wasn't deemed signed, it was deemed acceptance. In English-derived common law system, a written, signed agreement is required for certain special contracts, but the normal requirement is offer and acceptance of an agreement with consideration, writing and signatures are evidence of content and acceptance, but not generally required for it.

[leakycap]

Thanks for sharing - I didn't know this was not a new situation for the law, but it makes sense that many contract agreements find themselves moving forward without a real signature.