A nice statement of the problem, but hardly a convincing solution! The Electronic Commerce Act defines an electronic signature as "electronic information that a person creates or adopts in order to sign a document ". People don't use IMEI to sign documents--they use them because they are the default texting technology for all texting, no matter how serious. The reasoning here implies that every text message is signed, and makes nothing of the formal elements of a signature (eg what Fuller called the cautionary and channeling functions)--it's dramatically out of step with how text messages are usually used.

(For those familiar with the sitcom Brooklyn 99, this point is satirized by the character Captain Raymond Holt, who ends every text message with "Sincerely, Captain Raymond Holt". Everybody recognizes this as ridiculous.)

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:12 AM Matthew P. Harrington <matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca> wrote:

For those who maintain casebooks or other course materials, there is a recent Ontario case (Divisional Court) on whether a text message can constitute a signature. It arises in the context of a statute of limitations defence, but the principles seem applicable to contract or other contexts. It’s a nice, short exposition of the problem and why a text should be considered a signature in certain cases (see paras 42-50). The question of authenticity was solved not only by the fact that the text bore the telephone number of the sender, but also the “International Mobile Equipment Identifier (IMEI) number” was also embedded in the data of text itself and provides a unique digital signature for every phone.

Might be interesting as a footnote or squib in student materials. I know my students invariably ask about texts when we do statute of frauds.

The case is here:

https://www.ontariocondolaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/841/2021/07/2021onsc3477.pdf

Regards.

Harrington

From:	Jack Enman-Beech <jenmanbeech@gmail.com>
To:
Date:	05/08/2021 15:20:29
Subject:	Re: Is a text message a signature?