The use of email in contract negotiations
Email is ubiquitous and is used increasingly as a means to convey 'pre-contract' requirements and terms between parties who envisage entering into a formal contractual relationship. However, unless care is taken it is possible for a contract to be formed between the parties based upon that email correspondence.
In law, a contract does not need to be signed for it to be enforceable. A contract can be verbal. Even where a contract does need to be signed, it does not necessarily mean signature with a pen. And the word 'signature' has been sufficiently widely interpreted to include e-mail names or even nicknames.
In modern email practice, where the use of the 'reply' or 'reply to all' options is common, users can find themselves in a situation where a long chain of correspondence is created that can be construed as forming the basis of a binding contract. This is amply demonstrated by the case of Golden Ocean Group v Salgoacar Mining Industries (2012), briefly described below:
The Court of Appeal considered whether a chain of emails constituted an agreement ‘in writing’ between the parties, Golden Ocean Group (GOG) the owners of a vessel that it offered to hire to a subsidiary of Salgaocar Mining Industries (SMI) who would act as guarantor of their subsidiary.
Negotiations were mostly conducted by email. The purported guarantee was not discussed in any depth, but was referred to in the description of the charterer. But the final emails exchanged on behalf of the parties made no reference to SMI’s guarantee and no formal document was drawn up.
Shortly before the vessel was due to be delivered, SMI’s subsidiary denied the existence of a charter and said it was unable to proceed. GOG sought to bring proceedings against SMI as the guarantor. SMI contended the guarantee was unenforceable because it was not in writing and not signed by the guarantor.
The court disagreed and held the requirements necessary for a contract of guarantee had been satisfied. It found an exchange of emails could constitute an agreement in writing provided the transacting parties intended to be bound by it. The lack of a signature was not a barrier.
Conducting negotiations by email may expose a party to the possibility of unintentionally entering into an agreement. Parties should make it clear when negotiating in writing that they only intend to be contractually bound when a formal contract is drawn up and executed in a specified form. In the meantime all email should be marked 'subject to contract'. Even this is not foolproof but it should provide a measure of protection in the majority of cases.
It is also wise to avoid long strings of email correspondence.
 Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
- Alternative dispute resolution.
- Contract claims.
- Causes of construction disputes.
- Writing technique.
 External references
- See the decision in full Golden Ocean Group v Salgoacar Mining Industries.
Featured articles and news
What will the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) mean for you when they come into force in May?
Business Secretary chairs a new taskforce to monitor and advise on mitigating the impacts of Carillion’s liquidation.
Sir John Armitt is appointed the new chair of the National Infrastructure Commission.
High quality and high density homes - is it what we need or is it storing up trouble?
Government announces its intention to strengthen planning rules to protect music venues and neighbours.
National Audit Office reports that there is little evidence that PFI offers better value than other forms of contracting.
What is liquidation and how does it apply to contractors in the construction industry?
Scrutiny is placed on Carillion's controversial 2013 decision to extend subcontractor payment terms to 120 days.
RSHP unveil their involvement in a boundary crossing which will provide a new entry point into Hong Kong.
With PFI currently under the spotlight due to Carillion, this introductory article explains what they are.
Estimates suggest that up to 30,000 small firms could be at risk of non-payment as a result of Carillion's collapse.