Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.837 (2026)
Record or signature in electronic form; legal effect; enforcement.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
UNIFORM ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT
Act 305 of 2000
450.837 Record or signature in electronic form; legal effect; enforcement.
Sec. 7.
(1) A record or signature shall not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
(2) A contract shall not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
(3) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law.
(4) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.
History: 2000, Act 305, Imd. Eff. Oct. 16, 2000
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Kloian v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 733 N.W.2d 766 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
Kloian v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 733 N.W.2d 766 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “However, MCR 2.507(H) does not require a “signature”; it requires a “writing, subscribed” by the party against whom enforcement is sought.”
Clark v Al-Amin, 872 N.W.2d 730 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Accordingly, the e-mail exchange is a valid settlement agreement under MCL 450.837, and plaintiff’s trial attorney had the authority to make the settlement for her.”
Richardson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 836 F.3d 698 (6th Cir. 2016). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.837 . Although Richardson disputes that the first coaching was a disciplinary action, she concedes most of the facts relating to the first coaching, including that: she attempted to assist in the exchange of her daughter’s laptop; she spoke with an…”
Gillis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 875 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “Section 7 of the statute provides: *735 Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.837 . While the typical e-mail message lacks a hand-written signature and contains only the typed name of the sender, courts have found this sufficient to constitute a signature for purposes of the statute of frauds.”
Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l, Inc. v. Cobasys, LLC, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (N.D. Ala. 2009). “MCL 450.837. 8 . Cobasys, despite arguments to the contrary at the February 24-25, 2009 hearing, appar *1198 ently agrees, noting in its brief that, "While there is no dispute that the parties intended for the Master Terms to govern in the event a production contract [was]…”
Logan v. Casino, 299 F. Supp. 3d 874 (E.D. Mich. 2018). “3 Plaintiff agreed to be bound by the six-month limitations period when she clicked "yes" in response to the question of whether she agreed with the terms of the Disclosure, Release, and Authorization and then electronically signed her name. Under Michigan law (which applies to…”
Margrethe Melton v. Richard Barnard (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “1 On December 13, 2016, plaintiffs’ counsel sent an e-mail to defendants’ counsel that stated the following: 1 MCL 450.837 provides: (1) A record or signature shall not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.”
Brody v. CultureSource (E.D. Mich. 2020). “§§ 450.837, 450.832(h).1 In light of this evidence, Brody’s blanket denial is insufficient to show that she did not assent.”
Anderson v. Crothall Healthcare Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2022). “” MCL § 450.837. While Plaintiff claims she did not electronically sign the arbitration agreement, she clearly knew that she signed the other employment documents provided on the platform and treated her electronic signature as binding, evinced by her beginning to work for…”
in Re Martin Wallich Trust No 1 & Phyllis S Wallich Trust No 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “at 459-460 , citing MCL 450.837(4). However, the email cannot simply be subscribed; it must also contain the terms of the settlement, Kloian, 273 Mich App at 459-460 , and the email did not contain any of the terms.”
in Re Martin Wallich Trust No 1 & Phyllis S Wallich Trust No 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “at 459-460 , citing MCL 450.837(4). However, the email cannot simply be subscribed; it must also contain the terms of the settlement, Kloian, 273 Mich App at 459-460 , and the email did not contain any of the terms.”
Homespun Mkt. LLC v. W & L Pearl Arts Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “at 459-460, citing MCL 450.837(4). Our review of the documents considered by the trial court indicates that both parties were interested in settling this matter, and were actively working towards a comprehensive written agreement.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.837(4) — 9 cases
Kloian v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 733 N.W.2d 766 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “However, MCR 2.507(H) does not require a “signature”; it requires a “writing, subscribed” by the party against whom enforcement is sought.”
in Re Martin Wallich Trust No 1 & Phyllis S Wallich Trust No 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “at 459-460 , citing MCL 450.837(4). However, the email cannot simply be subscribed; it must also contain the terms of the settlement, Kloian, 273 Mich App at 459-460 , and the email did not contain any of the terms.”
in Re Martin Wallich Trust No 1 & Phyllis S Wallich Trust No 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “at 459-460 , citing MCL 450.837(4). However, the email cannot simply be subscribed; it must also contain the terms of the settlement, Kloian, 273 Mich App at 459-460 , and the email did not contain any of the terms.”
Homespun Mkt. LLC v. W & L Pearl Arts Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “at 459-460, citing MCL 450.837(4). Our review of the documents considered by the trial court indicates that both parties were interested in settling this matter, and were actively working towards a comprehensive written agreement.”
Homespun Mkt. LLC v. W & L Pearl Arts Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
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.