Subject: Re: Electronic Signatures
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 03:40:00 -0700 (PDT)

David:

Yes, the UCC (Article 2) would be the basis for not requiring a signed 
confirmation from the counterparty receiving the confirmation if the physical 
product is a "good" under the UCC. This I think answers your second question 
also.

Regards, Alan

	[email-masked]
	07/20/2000 10:38 PM
		 
		 To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
		 cc: [email-masked]
		 Subject: Electronic Signatures

Thanks for sending the chart.  I will send you the list of questions we 
discussed tomorrow.  In the interim, I had a couple of questions on the 
chart:  On the first line (physical, no master), is the basis for not 
requriing the confirm to be signed the UCC?  Also, what is meant by "unless 
commodity not 'good'"?

Thanks.

----------------------------------

This e-mail is sent by a law firm and contains information
that may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify us
immediately.