...Accordingly, we see no reason under general principles of contract law why a contract cannot be memorialized in an e-mail for purposes of determining whether the State has waived its sovereign immunity. (b) The State also contends that the trial court erred in applying OCGA § 10-12-7 of the GUETA10 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 Attorney General or the Department of Law had “agreed to send, accept, or rely upon electronic signatures or authorized his subordinates to do so in this instance or in any e-mail communication.” See OCGA § 10-12-18 (a) 10 OCGA § 10-12-7 (a) provides that “[a] record or signature shall not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.” In addition, that statute goes on to state that “[a] contract shall not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation,” OCGA § 10-12-7 (b), and that “[i]f a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record shall satisfy the law,” OCGA § 10-12-7 (c)....

...parties agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means under OCGA § 10-12-5 (b). Although the trial court did not expressly rule on this issue, it implicitly found the GUETA to be applicable by 31 applying OCGA § 10-12-7 to find that the e-mail exchange forming the Agreement constituted a valid written contract for sovereign immunity purposes....

...p of the e-mail, that contained her manually-typed name at the conclusion of the e-mail, and that was in the same e-mail exchange as Burton’s e-mail containing the terms of the Agreement. Accordingly, after applying the plain meaning of OCGA §§ 10-12-7 (d) and 10-12-2 (8) to these facts, we conclude that the requirements for an electronic signature under the GUETA have been met with 40 regard to both Burton and Graham.14 See Intl....