This page explains what kind of signature this system creates, what evidence is produced along the way, and how electronic signatures are treated across different legal systems. It is written for everyone involved in a signing process — including people who have no account in this CRM.
AM CRM creates a simple electronic signature (SES). That means data in electronic form which is attached to a declaration and associated with the signing person — for example a drawn signature, a typed name or an uploaded signature image, together with the circumstances in which it was given.
What is expressly not created is an advanced (AES) or a qualified electronic signature (QES). Both require a personal signing certificate and — for the QES — a qualified trust service provider that has verified the signer’s identity beforehand. No such certificates are issued or integrated here. Wherever you have been promised a higher level, or the law requires one, this is not the right tool.
This classification also appears on every certificate produced, so that it does not get lost when the document is passed on.
The process is built so that every step can be evidenced on its own and later changes stand out — including changes made by the operator of the system.
The verification page distinguishes honestly between “unchanged”, “changed” and “not verified”. A state that could not be recalculated at that moment is never reported as being in order.
As a general rule, the following applies in all of the jurisdictions listed below: most contracts are not subject to any particular form and can be concluded electronically; a declaration must not be treated as invalid merely because it was made electronically. Where the law does require a particular form, however, that requirement continues to apply — and a simple electronic signature is generally not sufficient there.
Legal basis
Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS); in Germany supplemented by §§ 126, 126a, 127 BGB (German Civil Code).
Treatment
eIDAS distinguishes between simple, advanced and qualified signatures. An electronic signature must not be denied legal effect merely because it is electronic; only the qualified signature is expressly placed on an equal footing with a handwritten one. Where a law requires written form, that can only be satisfied electronically by a qualified signature — so not by an SES.
Typically excluded (not exhaustive)
Legal basis
The ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 7001 et seq.) at federal level, together with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which has been adopted by almost every state; New York has its own, materially comparable statute.
Treatment
Electronic signatures and records are in principle placed on an equal footing with paper signatures, provided both sides agree to the electronic route, the signer intended to sign, and the record remains retrievable. No particular signature level is prescribed — what matters is that these points can be evidenced, which is precisely what the certificate documents.
Typically excluded (not exhaustive)
Legal basis
Electronic Communications Act 2000 (in particular s. 7); confirmed and set out by the Law Commission’s 2019 report on electronic execution of documents.
Treatment
Electronic signatures are effective for most contracts and admissible in court as evidence. For a deed, the additional requirements remain in place, in particular the presence and counter-signature of a witness.
Typically excluded (not exhaustive)
Legal basis
The Code of Obligations (Art. 11 et seq. OR, in particular Art. 14 (2bis) OR) and the Federal Act on Electronic Signatures (ZertES).
Treatment
Contracts are in principle not subject to any particular form and are therefore valid electronically as well. Only a qualified electronic signature combined with a qualified timestamp is placed on an equal footing with a handwritten signature. Where the law requires written form, a simple electronic signature is consequently not sufficient.
Typically excluded (not exhaustive)
Legal basis
At federal level, Part 2 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA); alongside it the provincial statutes, such as the Electronic Commerce Act 2000 in Ontario, the Electronic Transactions Acts in Alberta and British Columbia, and in Québec the Act to establish a legal framework for information technology.
Treatment
Electronic documents and signatures are in principle placed on an equal footing with paper, provided the parties consent to the electronic route. For certain dealings with federal authorities a “secure electronic signature” with a certificate is prescribed; AM CRM does not provide that level.
Typically excluded (not exhaustive)
In a dispute it is rarely the signature itself that matters, but who saw and confirmed what, and when. For every process, the following is therefore on record:
This page gives a general overview and is not legal advice. The exceptions listed are examples and expressly not exhaustive; legislation and case law change, and depending on the state, province or type of contract, further formal requirements may apply. Whether a simple electronic signature is sufficient for your particular case should be checked legally before you rely on it — for employment matters, guarantees, land, powers of attorney and wills it regularly is not.