First, there is a large body of federal statute, regulation and case law that assumes communication methods that have since been overtaken by technology and related modern business practice. Such laws often act as impediments to otherwise sound and desirable electronic commerce activity and they should be repealed or amended immediately. We will not undertake to rewrite the express language of a statute merely to accommodate the commercial conveniences attributable to modern technology. To the extent that federal law prohibits electronic records and electronic authentication systems due to quill pen laws, then it is clear that new federal law is in fact needed to eliminate or reform these antiquated bodies of law. . Unfortunately, this is typical in both state and federal law.
States are in the process of reforming our quill pen laws.
Substantive bodies of state law are intimately involved with these law reform projects, including contract law, commercial law, rules of evidence and other areas. At this stage, federal and state policy makers should coordinate efforts at law reform in our respective jurisdictions to assure the creation of a consistent and predictable base-line legal treatment of electronic records and authentication. Coordination and communication would have a greater chance of achieving a long term, solid national legal infrastructure for the information age than would quick attempts at federal laws that delve into substantive areas of state jurisprudence. It is my understanding that today s hearings relate directly to draft Technical Amendments to the Bank Protection Act of 1968. Important bodies of state contract law, for instance, could be contravened.