An intuitive concern expressed by some courts is that email's ubiquity and ease appears to undercut its intentionality. The Second Department in Forcelli, and other courts that have required a retyped signature (see Rawald v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 70 Misc.3d 1217 [A] 2021 NY Slip Op 50114 [u] [Sup Ct, NY County 2021]), have expressed unease about the casual nature of email. It is fair to say that most email users have on occasion sent emails that they did not mean to transmit, or that they regretted soon after transmission.
An intuitive concern expressed by some courts is that email's ubiquity and ease appears to undercut its intentionality. The Second Department in Forcelli, and other courts that have required a retyped signature (see Rawald v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 70 Misc.3d 1217 [A] 2021 NY Slip Op 50114 [u] [Sup Ct, NY County 2021]), have expressed unease about the casual nature of email. It is fair to say that most email users have on occasion sent emails that they did not mean to transmit, or that they regretted soon after transmission.
This rule avoids unnecessary delay caused by burden-shifting "swearing contests over whether an individual typed their name or it was generated automatically by their email account" ( Princeton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Precision Metals Corp. , 120 F. Supp. 3d 812, 820 [N.D. Ill. 2015] ). An intuitive concern expressed by some courts is that email's ubiquity and ease appears to undercut its intentionality. The Second Department in Forcelli , and other courts that have required a retyped signature (seeRawald v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 70 Misc. 3d 1217[A], 139 N.Y.S.3d 523, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 50114 [u] [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2021] ), have expressed unease about the casual nature of email. It is fair to say that most email users have on occasion sent emails that they did not mean to transmit, or that they regretted soon after transmission.