One of the repeated misunderstandings is that businesses and consumers tend to consider that if they have not signed a document, there is no possibility of being linked by an email or text message. Consumers and businesses are often quite surprised and, in some cases, worried when they learn that seemingly casual conversations containing a relevant language may be enough to create a legally binding contract or even a guarantee. The first case that appears to have sparked a discussion about text messages within the legal community is St. John`s Holdings, LLC v. Two Electronics, LLC.  In this case, the seller provided the buyer with an SMS confirming that a Memorandum of Understanding was acceptable and requested the buyer`s signature, but as soon as the buyer signed, the seller refused to execute the latest declaration of intent.  The Massachusetts Court held that “text messages and emails may comply with the Fraud Act, provided that, like other writings, they contain the essential terms of the transaction and are signed by the parties or their authorized agents.”  The St. John`s Holdings Court found that these conditions were met. The text message implicitly contained the Memorandum of Understanding and took into account all the essential terms of the contract.
The court then compared the text messages to the e-mail communication and found that the broker`s simple act, which inserted their first name at the end of the text message, was sufficient to qualify as a mandatory signature in these negotiations.  Given that texts and contracts remain a developing subject in the legal and commercial world, it is worth a review of a fairly current case, which was decided by our own Massachusetts Appeals court. In the event that a text has brought legal action, in St John`s Holdings v. Two electronic, involves negotiations for the purchase of a commercial building. The buyer`s broker had sent the seller`s broker an unsigned letter of intent as an e-mail installation. The Memorandum of Understanding that the parties wished to enter had to be signed by both parties. The seller`s broker followed by texting the buyer`s broker to demand that the Memorandum of Understanding be signed and that a deposit was made. The text read: “Steve (seller) wants (the buyer) to sign first, with a cheque, and then he will sign. Normally, the seller signs the last or second.
Don`t try to be stupid or opposed, but that`s how it normally works. I can sign today and I get them today. Tim. The buyer then signed the Memorandum of Understanding and made a cheque available to the seller. However, the seller, believing that he had not established a binding contractual relationship with the buyer, accepted a third party`s offer for the property and refused to countersign the buyer`s Memorandum of Understanding. The buyer believed that he had entered into a binding contract with the seller and attempted to assert his legal interests in Massachusetts State Court. As more cases are handled by the text, new legal problems will follow. For just a moment, these statistics are listening: as of 2017, 8 trillion texts a day have been sent worldwide. At the end of 2013, six billion texts were sent every day to the United States in the United States. Between 2011 and 2014, global use of the text increased by 140% in two and a half years. Many call SMS as the new email because of their speed. In fact, faster means everything in today`s business world and that`s where sms has a significant advantage over email. In the business world, the advantage of sending SMS is obvious: read faster, reach faster, no need for object, personal and more noticeable.
Since a real estate contract must be written under the law of state contracts, the importance of this decision would determine that the text messages are legally equivalent to bilateral treaties written on ink and paper.