<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Dear MK Shen,</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I do not understand your terminology “against the law”. If you mean criminally illegal then no it is not against the law ibut f you mean not legally enforceable under civil law then I see your protocol as being unnecessary and frankly overly complicated from a commercial perspective.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If Alice does to receive the acceptance communication (excluding the postal rule which I doubt would apply) even though Bob may have sent his acceptance there is no contract. Further the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (1999) deals with receipt of communications from a legal perspective (section 15). My understanding is that this law has been enacted in more than 46 US States (though I have not recently checked).</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In my law practice I advise my clients that if the acceptance is important then telephone the other side to satisfy themselves that the acceptance has been received. Further take a diary note of the call and ask the otherside to send an acknowledgement. Basically a three way handshake with an out of bounds communication.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If the acknowledgement is not received within a reasonable time then call again. The whole exercise is to obtain as best as possible some evidence to support the acceptance being received by Alice.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Again, I do not see how your proposed protocol provides the evidence that a court will need. Further, are we talking about minor contracts (less than $500) or contracts required by law to be in writing (statute of Frauds).</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It is the value of implementing this that also needs to be taken into consideration.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Kind Regards<br><br>Dr. Adrian McCullagh<br>Ph.D. LL.B. (Hons) B.App. Sc. (Computing)<br><br>ODMOB Lawyers<br>Email: ajmccullagh57@gmail.com<br>Email: amccullagh@live.com<br>MOB: +61 401 646 486<br>SKYPE: admac57<br><br>The contents of this email are confidential between the sender and the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient then no rights are granted to you because of this error and you are requested to promptly inform the sender of the error and to promptly destroy all copies of the email in your power, possession or control. The sender reserves all rights concerning this email including any privilege, copyright and confidentiality associated with this email. Even though an email signature block has been appended to this email, and despite the Electronic Transactions Act (Qld) or the Electronic Transactions Act (Cth), the signature block does not exhibit the senders intention to be bound by an offer previously sent by the intended recipient, unless the email specifically states otherwise.</p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0cm'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:mok-kong.shen@t-online.de">mok-kong shen</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Saturday, 25 June 2016 9:31 AM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:amccullagh@live.com">Adrian McCullagh</a>; <a href="mailto:rsalz@akamai.com">Salz, Rich</a>; <a href="mailto:cryptography@metzdowd.com">cryptography@metzdowd.com</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Cryptography] Proposal of a fair contract signing protocol</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><br>You are entirely right that "Bob is under no legal obligation to do<br>anything with Alices Offer". The issue in the present thread assumes<br>however that Bob considers Alice's offer to be acceptable and does<br>step 2 and the protocol comes to an end with Alice doing step 3,<br>producing the contract document C and showing that it is signed by<br>both Alice and Bob. Now the question is whether the contract signing<br>process is fair. My argumentation is that it is indeed fair according<br>to the fairness definition I have given.<br><br>Is the matter now clear to you?<br><br>I don't fully understand your last paragraph: (1) If Alice and Bob<br>choose to do as desribed in my protocol, is that against the law??<br>(2) If you don't see any unfairness in what is done in the protocol,<br>then all the better for me, isn't it?<br><br>M. K. Shen<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>