right now we're talking about because someone indicated they are the person who wrote the e mail that that should constitute a signature right should not flash on the contract real estate yes and i would also point out i would like to point out that i don't believe a signature in any form is really that a company or have the a contract attached to it sufficient to bind the maker of the email and the maker of the contract was all front tier doing so front chair is generating all yes i'm like what we see in the case law and the reason esas never come up is i think we're on the other side of what has generally  would you be making the same argument or is it is your argument you need to defect this is over the computer you know my i believe my argument is pretty straight forward i think it's only unique in that illinois courts haven't taken on the issue of what an e mail or a tax has in terms of by the fact as i pointed out in a texas  contract to somebody what is the point of it if that's not offered to sell the property it's no longer negotiations it's all done it's wrapped up again up a when the other side who is wanting to buy signs off we have an acceptance well and al tell me what are the implications of the fact that i'm sometimes you or someone with your the agreement to me once it has been signed by defendant's representative that doesn't sound like a done deal to me i contract was a done deal at that point if there wasn't a contract here the whole argument of counsel or the statute of frauds applying becomes moot if there is no contract we we've got it june twentieth email with contract closing june thirtieth which is the effective date and if that and time is of the absence if that isn't an agreement then i guess i don't understand what a contract yes my banking here is that my client clearly believe they were bound name mediately ordered out title which in this contract on their life unlike most the buyer was required to do all the work and pay all the expenses all front here was to get was one hundred fifteen k and they were done they attach the deeds to their contract which was part of the original discussion and the or a look at the early morning email  been approved by legal today george wood was the attorney at the time and says change the name because you got the wrong name they come back with an eighty minutes with a new contract with a new name on it and george would sends it back sign and says i'm ordering title right now nine days go by before frontiere sense an email saying our strategic business needs have shame by and so they knew that they were bound on all of was so important then why wait all those days before saying we're pulling the plug council can i go back for a moment you'd indicated that if it wasn't a contract and there should be no discussion of the statical frauds i disagree with that and that's because the statute of frauds deals with whether or not you can bring an action to force the contract if it is for a certain amount and not so it doesn't preclude the existence of a contract do you disagree with that statute of frauds yes tended to pretty bad fraud and here there's no way that could have happened weapon to a boy the time track when in fact they change their mind got a better better deal but i still have my initial question does the statute of frauds preclude the existence of contract do we have to have if we have a contract you're saying that if it's not a contract then we can discuss statute of frauds but statute of frauds does allow for contract but if it's not signed i basically on in force would you agree with that the statute of frauds doesn't require and thank segment share the statute of frauds doesn't even come into play in my writing that identifies the person to be charge is there and there's no chance of a fraudulent transaction or the other side trying to make a person m then because a statute of frauds is not a substantive piece of legislation that requires a signature to make something valid it's there to prevent something not right from happening or the case this legislation just said no contract was real stated valid until signed by both parties and be a quick way to solve the problem that's not what the statute says and that's not contract the person wanting to enforce the contract got the contract for it because that person's indorsed a deposit japp and the deposit check had written on if the the parcel that was in question the court found therefore that yes i'm writing sufficient to bind the party to be charge there is not any difference writing a check pursuant to the terms of the contract right now they may endorse the chair oh yes signing the check we don't have anything like that we have t soon as it is received in review will that be means that they're not going to but i thought you said maybe it was a later communication where wood said we're getting said that the e mail our legal department has approved this today if he sends sat out and that's not his offer to sell and he's got the authority to do it then we are either playing a game with my client and his lawyer it's a hoax it's a show i don't know what it all so it could be other than they intended to be found here and our guy mr bentley signs off on it and ninth they get the email from front here says our strategic business needs have changed and say hey we didn't sign this thing we're not bound they just say and we've changed our mind and  s an offer has been accepted we have a binding contract and that means all that's left is can buy this ok under the statute of frauds they're using the statute in a way that it was never the sign be you that are saying with out that signature and an instead of the e mails where the whole contract was attached which makes it all part of the e mail you can't go forward against us it's an escape hatch they're looking for because they went and sold the property to somebody else and we see that in their motion to dismiss count one that was filed with this or where they it's it's clear i could get a bond for my client and nine hundred sixty thousand dollars bond premium would have been six figures more than what we're even talking about here so when you put all that to yeah they're all everything they have  apis it the cases they side are in apas that none of them work on the facts of this case they were all the cited on other issues and they never once mention  deployment or of st john's holdings which are the only two sister state cases in twenty thirteen and twenty fifth and i could find an expanded legal search of the fact of an e mail or a text message serving as the same and sure in both cases especially st john's holdings out of massachusetts went into a long dissertation of all the stuff that we're talking about here and how we got to this point with the economy and they clearly have a kid yes that e mail is a signature and so did debt money and taxes these are two large states with a lot of litigation all the courts both in illinois and at the federal level seven circuit and the district courts in illinois they've all concluded that e mails are signatures it's just this situation where we have piece of real estate bob and because this is a very expensive piece of real estate you know i'm just asking the court to to carefully the e mails were signed with even tronic signatures do you disagree with that i have not seen obviously anything more than what was reported so i only know what's in the caves holding this is a case which primarily wrist revolves around whether a and e mail and substitute for signature the sale of real estate thereby cutting through a statute of frauds defe s this is in the plaintiff's framing of the case then the application of relatively new technology to a very very old rule and how that interaction would play out iraq yeah however prior to getting to that question and there may never be a need to answer that question in this case there are a myriad of other issues that need to be addressed as well and a decision in our favor on any one of these other issues would be just positive would be sufficient to affirm the holding or the order from the court below d the first issue is if we suppose that an e mail which is transmitting an unsigned agreement if that email can constitute a signature of the same agreement let's suppose that that is true for the sake of argument perhaps perhaps just for those purposes only certain you know would marty supposed to well i'm attempting to frame the case as best i can in one sentence ok let's suppose that an e mail  primary argument among the go is simply that if you sign he's not a party and he he he didn't if you found anyone he found himself on the record doesn't reflect that he agent if an agent is acting on behalf of the principle then you have to have a signature of the principle which grants authority to that agent after every signed writing from the principal which to that agent to conduct that particular business and there in this case there is nothing in the record that would show that mr craig had signed authority from the front to your company transaction that is a requirement of the statute of frauds it was raised at the trial court level in our view and there's nothing in the record which would indicate that mr craig had that written strike transaction however a parent already requires some representation by the principal that this individual has the authority that has the authority that you you come to believe he has due to those representations there's nothing in the record from rentier and repeating that frank your ever made representations about talk to mr cragg he's our guy and he's going to handle this  additional signature required so i don't think it would be enough for there to be near representations by front here that go talk to dr phil handle the rest of this what you would need is you would need a signed writing which would indicate that authority this in order to rely on and so now i will discuss the effect of emails and whether an e mail really need both parties signing the agreement that a condition of an enforceable contract we all know it to be true is that both of us signed the agreement and we deliver d so it's certainly an indication of the intention of the parties although i don't know how much stock we ought to place on that because of the posture of the  case as to the effect of transmitting a con or an unsigned contract by email and whether that constitutes a signature of the same contract a signature can be any mark or indication that signifies an adoption authentication and adoption of a particular document what we have here is an e mail which merely  states your doc doesn't indicate that the company is authenticating and intends to be bound by this particular document and the only name that appears on the e mail is the name dexter t crashing into your north doesn't person you're dealing with if you want to write him a letter here's his address you want to phone number right there a little logo that goes at the bottom of everybody's email there's nothing unusual about that and there's nothing that would indicate that company is adopting or authentic aiding this particular document at the moment they send it's an e mail in the same way that people exchange documents with each other all the time if we decide that sending emails constitutes a signature of that e mail we all have to change the way we do business quite a bit because people are shipping documents back and forth one another all the time and what you don't want to do  accidentally find yourself a contract bottom or the other issues that counsel raises i think regret herring's who signed the e mails and yaps and then he tries to say dext it you know if he wanted to say this isn't valid then tell we have signed it and that's all we have to do is put back as email he didn't put any restrictions of any kind in any of those e mails  and counsel while he said he raised the issue it was merely argument he raised in the trial court there was nothing raised by way of affidavit all they had to do is come up president a front here in north shotgun he's tossing stuff out there see what sticks and he's admitted right here in this court room that there is nothing on the record showing forty or lack of authority and baxter correct so we have to take the case where we find it if he really believed bad he would have come in the trial or with parole evidence or side of the fridge the case client who's got a contract and has now sit on the sidelines without anything to show for it even if this court has some reservations about this i remain back to been approved by legal today in his e mail how could the legal authorities do that if he didn't have authority plus or silence and the silence here is they wait until the day before payment the why did they prepare for it makes no sense other than it was a contract and they know it and as we know from their motion they sold somebody else for nearly a mil