If not, the contract may not be enforceable. Today the law has not come to grips with how this issue should be decided - in the U.S. or internationally. Unlike situations using signed contracts or the transfer of actual funds, computer hackers and thieves dont need to be physically present to wreak their havoc. Indeed, the increasing use of the Internet and networked, interconnected systems has even made access to the transactions themselves a source of concern to information security experts and risk managers. Clearly authentication and verification procedures need to be implemented which are secure and auditable.
Most commercial transactions begin with some form of offer and acceptance.
When this process is automated, the possibility that a message can be sent and a contract formed, without reflecting the actual intent of the contracting parties is magnified. In addition, given the speed at which communications occur, it is increasingly probable incorrect messages or messages with incorrect or imprecise information will be sent and remain undetected until the mistaken 'contract' has already been relied upon or even performed. Both common sense and the law tell us we should be sure the acceptance matches the offer, that the offer wasn't revoked, that the buyer and seller have authority and are who they claim to be. In a paper-based society, the law gives us tools and precedent to guide us. No such jurisprudence exists with respect to digital contracts.