Legality of electronic contracts, records, and signatures
Known as the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
The act spans §§ 26-6-10–26-6-90 (21 sections).
Applied in 1 court decision — leading case Traynum v. Scavens (2016)
Most recently applied in Traynum v. Scavens (April 2016)
2004 Act No. 279, SECTION 1.
(A) A record or signature must not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
(B) A contract must not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record is used in its formation.
(C) An electronic record satisfies a law requiring a record to be in writing.
(D) An electronic signature satisfies a law requiring a signature.
Official source: South Carolina Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain South Carolina statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.