Reviewed external-authority layer
External law anchors
These bounded propositions are tied to reviewed official law, treaty, model law, official guidance, or official reform material. External legal effect remains jurisdiction-specific and does not convert Eviulon internal status into external recognition.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
Federal E-SIGN recognizes electronic-agent involvement only through an attribution boundary
The federal E-SIGN Act prevents electronic form alone from defeating legal effect and addresses contracts formed through electronic agents when the agent’s action is legally attributable to the person to be bound. The federal rule does not create an independent machine contracting personality.
Scope: United States federal electronic-signature law only. Capacity, attribution, state law, consent, exclusions, substantive contract law, and transaction-specific requirements remain separate.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
California expressly recognizes automated transactions and electronic-agent contract formation
California UETA defines electronic agents and automated transactions, requires an agreement to conduct a covered transaction electronically, and permits contracts to be formed through interactions of electronic agents or an electronic agent and an individual. Applicable substantive law still determines the contract terms.
Scope: California state law only. This is not a universal United States rule and does not establish machine citizenship, independent legal personality, or unlimited agent authority.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
Illinois UETA also recognizes automated transactions, but it is a separate state enactment
Illinois 815 ILCS 333 defines electronic agents and automated transactions and permits contracts to be formed through interacting electronic agents or an electronic agent and an individual under its statutory framework. The terms remain governed by applicable substantive law.
Scope: Illinois state law only. It must not be relabeled as federal law or generalized to every U.S. jurisdiction.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
The former Illinois Electronic Commerce Security Act is superseded for current-state claims
Illinois officially identifies 5 ILCS 175, the Electronic Commerce Security Act, as repealed by Public Act 102-38. Current public explanations therefore use 815 ILCS 333 rather than treating 5 ILCS 175 as present Illinois electronic-agent authority.
Scope: Source-currentness correction. The repealed Act remains historical provenance only; current Illinois propositions must resolve to current authority.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
Texas UETA expressly addresses electronic agents and automated contract formation
Texas Business & Commerce Code Chapter 322 defines electronic agents and automated transactions, ties covered use to party agreement, and permits specified automated contract formation while leaving attribution/effect to context and other applicable law.
Scope: Texas state law only. It is not federal law, does not create machine citizenship/personhood, and does not automatically govern a transaction connected to another state.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
Delaware UETA addresses electronic agents but contains important statutory exclusions
Delaware Title 6 Chapter 12A defines electronic agents and automated transactions and permits specified automated contract formation, while §12A-103 excludes several Delaware entity-law regimes and preserves other substantive law.
Scope: Delaware state law only. UETA treatment cannot be assumed to govern excluded Delaware corporate/entity statutes or resolve authority, liability, or forum questions.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
New York ESRA is not a copy of the UETA electronic-agent framework
New York State Technology Law Article 3 validates electronic signatures and records and makes electronic use generally voluntary, but the reviewed Article 3 definitions do not use the UETA terms electronic agent or automated transaction.
Scope: New York state law only. This is a deliberate non-generalization: another state’s UETA electronic-agent rule is not silently imported into New York law.