O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-12-7 (2019)

Legal effect of electronic records or signatures

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A record or signature shall not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.

(b) A contract shall not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.

(c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record shall satisfy the law.

(d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature shall satisfy the law.

History

Code 1981, § 10-12-7, enacted by Ga. L. 2009, p. 698, § 1/HB 126.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2022–2024 · leading case: State of Georgia v. Fed. Def. Prog., Inc., 315 Ga. 319 (Ga. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Georgia v. Fed. Def. Prog., Inc., 315 Ga. 319 (Ga. 2022). · cites it 24× “(b) The State also contends that the trial court erred in applying OCGA § 10-12-7 of the GUETA 10 to support that the e-mail exchange forming the Agreement constituted a valid written contract for sovereign immunity purposes because the Appellees presented no evidence that the…”
Morgan & Morgan Jacksonville, Pllc v. Brian Brown (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 10-12-7 (a), (d). See generally Smith v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.