{"id":"qld:act-2001-042","name":"Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001","slug":"electronic-transactions-queensland-act-2001","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"qld","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"42 of 2001","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":86403,"registerId":"qld-act-2001-042-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"General rule about validity of transactions for State laws","content":"# General rule about validity of transactions for State laws","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"sec.8","sectionType":"section","heading":"Validity of electronic transactions","content":"### sec.8 Validity of electronic transactions\n\nA transaction is not invalid under a State law merely because it took place wholly or partly by 1 or more electronic communications.\nHowever, the general rule in subsection (1) does not apply for the validity of a transaction to the extent to which another, more specific, provision of this chapter deals with its validity.\n(sec.8-ssec.1) A transaction is not invalid under a State law merely because it took place wholly or partly by 1 or more electronic communications.\n(sec.8-ssec.2) However, the general rule in subsection (1) does not apply for the validity of a transaction to the extent to which another, more specific, provision of this chapter deals with its validity.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Requirements under State laws","content":"# Requirements under State laws","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.2-div.1","sectionType":"division","heading":"Writing","content":"## Writing","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"sec.9","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application","content":"### sec.9 Application\n\nThis division applies to a requirement or permission to give information, whether the expression give, send or serve, or another expression, is used.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"sec.10","sectionType":"section","heading":"Definitions for div 1","content":"### sec.10 Definitions for div 1\n\nIn this division—\ngive information includes, but is not limited to, the following—\nmake an application;\nmake or lodge a claim;\ngive, send or serve a notification;\nlodge a return;\nmake a request;\nmake a declaration;\nlodge or issue a certificate;\nmake, vary or cancel an election;\nlodge an objection;\ngive a statement of reasons.\n- (a) make an application;\n- (b) make or lodge a claim;\n- (c) give, send or serve a notification;\n- (d) lodge a return;\n- (e) make a request;\n- (f) make a declaration;\n- (g) lodge or issue a certificate;\n- (h) make, vary or cancel an election;\n- (i) lodge an objection;\n- (j) give a statement of reasons.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"sec.11","sectionType":"section","heading":"Requirement to give information in writing","content":"### sec.11 Requirement to give information in writing\n\nIf, under a State law, a person is required to give information in writing, the requirement is taken to have been met if the person gives the information by an electronic communication in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\nThe circumstances are that—\nat the time the information was given, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\nthe person to whom the information is required to be given consents to the information being given by an electronic communication.\n(sec.11-ssec.1) If, under a State law, a person is required to give information in writing, the requirement is taken to have been met if the person gives the information by an electronic communication in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\n(sec.11-ssec.2) The circumstances are that— at the time the information was given, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and the person to whom the information is required to be given consents to the information being given by an electronic communication.\n- (a) at the time the information was given, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\n- (b) the person to whom the information is required to be given consents to the information being given by an electronic communication.","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"sec.12","sectionType":"section","heading":"Permission to give information in writing","content":"### sec.12 Permission to give information in writing\n\nIf, under a State law, a person is permitted to give information in writing, the person may give the information by an electronic communication in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\nThe circumstances are that—\nat the time the information was given, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\nthe person to whom the information is permitted to be given consents to the information being given by an electronic communication.\n(sec.12-ssec.1) If, under a State law, a person is permitted to give information in writing, the person may give the information by an electronic communication in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\n(sec.12-ssec.2) The circumstances are that— at the time the information was given, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and the person to whom the information is permitted to be given consents to the information being given by an electronic communication.\n- (a) at the time the information was given, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\n- (b) the person to whom the information is permitted to be given consents to the information being given by an electronic communication.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"sec.13","sectionType":"section","heading":"Other particular laws not affected","content":"### sec.13 Other particular laws not affected\n\nSections 11 and 12 do not affect the operation of another State law that makes provision about requiring or permitting information to be given, in accordance with particular information technology requirements—\non a particular kind of data storage device; or\nby a particular kind of electronic communication.\n- (a) on a particular kind of data storage device; or\n- (b) by a particular kind of electronic communication.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.2-div.2","sectionType":"division","heading":"Signatures","content":"## Signatures","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"sec.14","sectionType":"section","heading":"Requirement for signature","content":"### sec.14 Requirement for signature\n\nIf, under a State law, a person’s signature is required, the requirement is taken to have been met for an electronic communication if—\na method is used to identify the person and to indicate the person’s intention in relation to the information communicated; and\nthe method used was either—\nas reliable as appropriate for the purposes for which the electronic communication was generated or communicated, having regard to all the circumstances, including any relevant agreement; or\nproven in fact to have fulfilled the functions described in paragraph (a) , by itself or together with further evidence; and\nthe person to whom the signature is required to be given consents to the requirement being met by using the method mentioned in paragraph (a) .\nThe reference in subsection (1) to a law that requires a signature includes a reference to a law that provides consequences for the absence of a signature.\ns 14 amd 2013 No. 35 s 72\n(sec.14-ssec.1) If, under a State law, a person’s signature is required, the requirement is taken to have been met for an electronic communication if— a method is used to identify the person and to indicate the person’s intention in relation to the information communicated; and the method used was either— as reliable as appropriate for the purposes for which the electronic communication was generated or communicated, having regard to all the circumstances, including any relevant agreement; or proven in fact to have fulfilled the functions described in paragraph (a) , by itself or together with further evidence; and the person to whom the signature is required to be given consents to the requirement being met by using the method mentioned in paragraph (a) .\n(sec.14-ssec.2) The reference in subsection (1) to a law that requires a signature includes a reference to a law that provides consequences for the absence of a signature.\n- (a) a method is used to identify the person and to indicate the person’s intention in relation to the information communicated; and\n- (b) the method used was either— (i) as reliable as appropriate for the purposes for which the electronic communication was generated or communicated, having regard to all the circumstances, including any relevant agreement; or (ii) proven in fact to have fulfilled the functions described in paragraph (a) , by itself or together with further evidence; and\n- (i) as reliable as appropriate for the purposes for which the electronic communication was generated or communicated, having regard to all the circumstances, including any relevant agreement; or\n- (ii) proven in fact to have fulfilled the functions described in paragraph (a) , by itself or together with further evidence; and\n- (c) the person to whom the signature is required to be given consents to the requirement being met by using the method mentioned in paragraph (a) .\n- (i) as reliable as appropriate for the purposes for which the electronic communication was generated or communicated, having regard to all the circumstances, including any relevant agreement; or\n- (ii) proven in fact to have fulfilled the functions described in paragraph (a) , by itself or together with further evidence; and","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"sec.15","sectionType":"section","heading":"Other particular laws not affected","content":"### sec.15 Other particular laws not affected\n\nSection 14 does not affect the operation of another State law that makes provision for or in relation to requiring—\nan electronic communication to contain an electronic signature, however described; or\nan electronic communication to contain a unique identification in an electronic form; or\na particular method to be used for an electronic communication to identify the originator of the communication and to indicate the originator’s intention in relation to the information communicated.\ns 15 amd 2013 No. 35 s 73\n- (a) an electronic communication to contain an electronic signature, however described; or\n- (b) an electronic communication to contain a unique identification in an electronic form; or\n- (c) a particular method to be used for an electronic communication to identify the originator of the communication and to indicate the originator’s intention in relation to the information communicated.","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.2-div.3","sectionType":"division","heading":"Production of document","content":"## Production of document","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"sec.16","sectionType":"section","heading":"Requirement to produce document","content":"### sec.16 Requirement to produce document\n\nIf, under a State law, a person is required to produce a document that is in the form of paper, an article or other material, the requirement is taken to have been met if the person produces, by an electronic communication, an electronic form of the document in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\nThe circumstances are that—\nhaving regard to all the relevant circumstances when the communication was sent, the method of generating the electronic form of the document provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the document; and\nwhen the communication was sent, it was reasonable to expect the information contained in the electronic form of the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\nthe person to whom the document is required to be produced consents to the production, by an electronic communication, of an electronic form of the document.\nFor subsection (2) (a) , the integrity of information contained in a document is maintained only if the information has remained complete and unaltered, apart from—\nthe addition of any endorsement; or\nany immaterial change;\narising in the normal course of communication, storage or display.\ns 16 amd 2002 No. 34 s 17 ; 2010 No. 42 s 214 sch\n(sec.16-ssec.1) If, under a State law, a person is required to produce a document that is in the form of paper, an article or other material, the requirement is taken to have been met if the person produces, by an electronic communication, an electronic form of the document in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\n(sec.16-ssec.2) The circumstances are that— having regard to all the relevant circumstances when the communication was sent, the method of generating the electronic form of the document provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the document; and when the communication was sent, it was reasonable to expect the information contained in the electronic form of the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and the person to whom the document is required to be produced consents to the production, by an electronic communication, of an electronic form of the document.\n(sec.16-ssec.3) For subsection (2) (a) , the integrity of information contained in a document is maintained only if the information has remained complete and unaltered, apart from— the addition of any endorsement; or any immaterial change; arising in the normal course of communication, storage or display.\n- (a) having regard to all the relevant circumstances when the communication was sent, the method of generating the electronic form of the document provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the document; and\n- (b) when the communication was sent, it was reasonable to expect the information contained in the electronic form of the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\n- (c) the person to whom the document is required to be produced consents to the production, by an electronic communication, of an electronic form of the document.\n- (a) the addition of any endorsement; or\n- (b) any immaterial change;","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"sec.17","sectionType":"section","heading":"Permission to produce a document","content":"### sec.17 Permission to produce a document\n\nIf, under a State law, a person is permitted to produce a document in the form of paper, an article or other material, then, instead of producing the document in that form, the person may produce, by an electronic communication, an electronic form of the document in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\nThe circumstances are that—\nhaving regard to all the relevant circumstances when the communication was sent, the method of generating the electronic form of the document provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the document; and\nwhen the communication was sent, it was reasonable to expect the information contained in the electronic form of the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\nthe person to whom the document is permitted to be produced consents to the production, by an electronic communication, of an electronic form of the document.\nFor subsection (2) (a) , the integrity of information contained in a document is maintained only if the information has remained complete and unaltered, apart from—\nthe addition of any endorsement; or\nany immaterial change;\narising in the normal course of communication, storage or display.\n(sec.17-ssec.1) If, under a State law, a person is permitted to produce a document in the form of paper, an article or other material, then, instead of producing the document in that form, the person may produce, by an electronic communication, an electronic form of the document in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\n(sec.17-ssec.2) The circumstances are that— having regard to all the relevant circumstances when the communication was sent, the method of generating the electronic form of the document provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the document; and when the communication was sent, it was reasonable to expect the information contained in the electronic form of the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and the person to whom the document is permitted to be produced consents to the production, by an electronic communication, of an electronic form of the document.\n(sec.17-ssec.3) For subsection (2) (a) , the integrity of information contained in a document is maintained only if the information has remained complete and unaltered, apart from— the addition of any endorsement; or any immaterial change; arising in the normal course of communication, storage or display.\n- (a) having regard to all the relevant circumstances when the communication was sent, the method of generating the electronic form of the document provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the document; and\n- (b) when the communication was sent, it was reasonable to expect the information contained in the electronic form of the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\n- (c) the person to whom the document is permitted to be produced consents to the production, by an electronic communication, of an electronic form of the document.\n- (a) the addition of any endorsement; or\n- (b) any immaterial change;","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"sec.18","sectionType":"section","heading":"Other particular laws not affected","content":"### sec.18 Other particular laws not affected\n\nSections 16 and 17 do not affect the operation of another State law that makes provision for or in relation to requiring or permitting electronic forms of documents to be produced, in accordance with particular information technology requirements—\non a particular kind of data storage device; or\nby a particular kind of electronic communication.\n- (a) on a particular kind of data storage device; or\n- (b) by a particular kind of electronic communication.","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.2-div.4","sectionType":"division","heading":"Recording and keeping information and documents","content":"## Recording and keeping information and documents","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"sec.19","sectionType":"section","heading":"Recording information","content":"### sec.19 Recording information\n\nIf, under a State law, a person is required to record information in writing, the requirement is taken to have been met if the person records the information in electronic form in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\nThe circumstances are that—\nat the time the information was recorded, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\nif a regulation requires the information to be recorded on a particular kind of data storage device, the requirement has been met.\n(sec.19-ssec.1) If, under a State law, a person is required to record information in writing, the requirement is taken to have been met if the person records the information in electronic form in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\n(sec.19-ssec.2) The circumstances are that— at the time the information was recorded, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and if a regulation requires the information to be recorded on a particular kind of data storage device, the requirement has been met.\n- (a) at the time the information was recorded, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\n- (b) if a regulation requires the information to be recorded on a particular kind of data storage device, the requirement has been met.","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"sec.20","sectionType":"section","heading":"Keeping written documents","content":"### sec.20 Keeping written documents\n\nIf, under a State law, a person is required to keep, for a particular period, a document that is in the form of paper, an article or other material, the requirement is taken to have been met if the person keeps, or causes another person to keep, an electronic form of the document for the period in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\nThe circumstances are that—\nhaving regard to all the relevant circumstances when the electronic form of the document was generated, the method of generating the electronic form of the document provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the document; and\nwhen the electronic form of the document was generated, it was reasonable to expect the information contained in the electronic form of the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\nif a regulation requires the electronic form of the document to be kept on a particular kind of data storage device, the requirement has been met for the period.\nFor subsection (2) (a) , the integrity of information contained in a document is maintained only if the information has remained complete and unaltered, apart from—\nthe addition of any endorsement; or\nany immaterial change;\narising in the normal course of communication, storage or display.\n(sec.20-ssec.1) If, under a State law, a person is required to keep, for a particular period, a document that is in the form of paper, an article or other material, the requirement is taken to have been met if the person keeps, or causes another person to keep, an electronic form of the document for the period in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\n(sec.20-ssec.2) The circumstances are that— having regard to all the relevant circumstances when the electronic form of the document was generated, the method of generating the electronic form of the document provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the document; and when the electronic form of the document was generated, it was reasonable to expect the information contained in the electronic form of the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and if a regulation requires the electronic form of the document to be kept on a particular kind of data storage device, the requirement has been met for the period.\n(sec.20-ssec.3) For subsection (2) (a) , the integrity of information contained in a document is maintained only if the information has remained complete and unaltered, apart from— the addition of any endorsement; or any immaterial change; arising in the normal course of communication, storage or display.\n- (a) having regard to all the relevant circumstances when the electronic form of the document was generated, the method of generating the electronic form of the document provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the document; and\n- (b) when the electronic form of the document was generated, it was reasonable to expect the information contained in the electronic form of the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\n- (c) if a regulation requires the electronic form of the document to be kept on a particular kind of data storage device, the requirement has been met for the period.\n- (a) the addition of any endorsement; or\n- (b) any immaterial change;","sortOrder":18},{"sectionNumber":"sec.21","sectionType":"section","heading":"Keeping electronic communications","content":"### sec.21 Keeping electronic communications\n\nIf, under a State law, a person ( keeper ) is required to keep, for a particular period, information that was the subject of an electronic communication, the requirement is taken to have been met if the keeper keeps, or causes another person to keep, in electronic form, the information for the period in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\nThe circumstances are that—\nat the commencement of the keeping of the information, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\nhaving regard to all the relevant circumstances at the commencement of the keeping of the information, the method of keeping the information in electronic form provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the electronic communication; and\nduring the period, the keeper also keeps, or causes the other person to keep, in electronic form, such additional information obtained by the keeper as is enough to enable the identification of the following—\nthe origin of the electronic communication;\nthe destination of the electronic communication;\nwhen the electronic communication was sent;\nwhen the electronic communication was received; and\nat the commencement of the keeping of the additional information mentioned in paragraph (c) , it was reasonable to expect the additional information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\nif a regulation requires the information to be kept on a particular kind of data storage device—the requirement has been met for the period.\nFor subsection (2) (b) , the integrity of information that was the subject of an electronic communication is maintained only if the information has remained complete and unaltered, apart from—\nthe addition of any endorsement; or\nany immaterial change;\narising in the normal course of communication, storage or display.\n(sec.21-ssec.1) If, under a State law, a person ( keeper ) is required to keep, for a particular period, information that was the subject of an electronic communication, the requirement is taken to have been met if the keeper keeps, or causes another person to keep, in electronic form, the information for the period in the circumstances stated in subsection (2) .\n(sec.21-ssec.2) The circumstances are that— at the commencement of the keeping of the information, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and having regard to all the relevant circumstances at the commencement of the keeping of the information, the method of keeping the information in electronic form provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the electronic communication; and during the period, the keeper also keeps, or causes the other person to keep, in electronic form, such additional information obtained by the keeper as is enough to enable the identification of the following— the origin of the electronic communication; the destination of the electronic communication; when the electronic communication was sent; when the electronic communication was received; and at the commencement of the keeping of the additional information mentioned in paragraph (c) , it was reasonable to expect the additional information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and if a regulation requires the information to be kept on a particular kind of data storage device—the requirement has been met for the period.\n(sec.21-ssec.3) For subsection (2) (b) , the integrity of information that was the subject of an electronic communication is maintained only if the information has remained complete and unaltered, apart from— the addition of any endorsement; or any immaterial change; arising in the normal course of communication, storage or display.\n- (a) at the commencement of the keeping of the information, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\n- (b) having regard to all the relevant circumstances at the commencement of the keeping of the information, the method of keeping the information in electronic form provided a reliable way of maintaining the integrity of the information contained in the electronic communication; and\n- (c) during the period, the keeper also keeps, or causes the other person to keep, in electronic form, such additional information obtained by the keeper as is enough to enable the identification of the following— (i) the origin of the electronic communication; (ii) the destination of the electronic communication; (iii) when the electronic communication was sent; (iv) when the electronic communication was received; and\n- (i) the origin of the electronic communication;\n- (ii) the destination of the electronic communication;\n- (iii) when the electronic communication was sent;\n- (iv) when the electronic communication was received; and\n- (d) at the commencement of the keeping of the additional information mentioned in paragraph (c) , it was reasonable to expect the additional information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and\n- (e) if a regulation requires the information to be kept on a particular kind of data storage device—the requirement has been met for the period.\n- (i) the origin of the electronic communication;\n- (ii) the destination of the electronic communication;\n- (iii) when the electronic communication was sent;\n- (iv) when the electronic communication was received; and\n- (a) the addition of any endorsement; or\n- (b) any immaterial change;","sortOrder":19},{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Other provisions about State laws","content":"# Other provisions about State laws","sortOrder":20},{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.3-div.1","sectionType":"division","heading":"Application","content":"## Application","sortOrder":21},{"sectionNumber":"sec.22","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application of part 3","content":"### sec.22 Application of part 3\n\nThis part applies for each State law.","sortOrder":22},{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.3-div.2","sectionType":"division","heading":"Time of dispatch and receipt","content":"## Time of dispatch and receipt","sortOrder":23},{"sectionNumber":"sec.23","sectionType":"section","heading":"Time of dispatch","content":"### sec.23 Time of dispatch\n\nUnless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee of an electronic communication, the time of dispatch of the electronic communication is—\nthe time when the electronic communication leaves an information system under the control of the originator or of the party who sent it on behalf of the originator; or\nif the electronic communication has not left an information system under the control of the originator or of the party who sent it on behalf of the originator—the time the electronic communication is received by the addressee.\nSubsection (1) applies even though the place the information system supporting an electronic address is located may be different from the place the electronic communication is taken to have been dispatched under section 25 .\ns 23 sub 2013 No. 35 s 74\n(sec.23-ssec.1) Unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee of an electronic communication, the time of dispatch of the electronic communication is— the time when the electronic communication leaves an information system under the control of the originator or of the party who sent it on behalf of the originator; or if the electronic communication has not left an information system under the control of the originator or of the party who sent it on behalf of the originator—the time the electronic communication is received by the addressee.\n(sec.23-ssec.2) Subsection (1) applies even though the place the information system supporting an electronic address is located may be different from the place the electronic communication is taken to have been dispatched under section 25 .\n- (a) the time when the electronic communication leaves an information system under the control of the originator or of the party who sent it on behalf of the originator; or\n- (b) if the electronic communication has not left an information system under the control of the originator or of the party who sent it on behalf of the originator—the time the electronic communication is received by the addressee.","sortOrder":24},{"sectionNumber":"sec.24","sectionType":"section","heading":"Time of receipt","content":"### sec.24 Time of receipt\n\nUnless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee of an electronic communication—\nthe time of receipt of the electronic communication is the time the electronic communication becomes capable of being retrieved by the addressee at an electronic address designated by the addressee; or\nthe time of receipt of the electronic communication at another electronic address of the addressee is the time when both—\nthe electronic communication has become capable of being retrieved by the addressee at that address; and\nthe addressee has become aware that the electronic communication has been sent to that address.\nFor subsection (1) , unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee of the electronic communication, it is to be assumed that the electronic communication is capable of being retrieved by the addressee when it reaches the addressee’s electronic address.\nSubsection (1) applies even though the place the information system supporting an electronic address is located may be different from the place the electronic communication is taken to have been received under section 25 .\ns 24 sub 2013 No. 35 s 74\n(sec.24-ssec.1) Unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee of an electronic communication— the time of receipt of the electronic communication is the time the electronic communication becomes capable of being retrieved by the addressee at an electronic address designated by the addressee; or the time of receipt of the electronic communication at another electronic address of the addressee is the time when both— the electronic communication has become capable of being retrieved by the addressee at that address; and the addressee has become aware that the electronic communication has been sent to that address.\n(sec.24-ssec.2) For subsection (1) , unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee of the electronic communication, it is to be assumed that the electronic communication is capable of being retrieved by the addressee when it reaches the addressee’s electronic address.\n(sec.24-ssec.3) Subsection (1) applies even though the place the information system supporting an electronic address is located may be different from the place the electronic communication is taken to have been received under section 25 .\n- (a) the time of receipt of the electronic communication is the time the electronic communication becomes capable of being retrieved by the addressee at an electronic address designated by the addressee; or\n- (b) the time of receipt of the electronic communication at another electronic address of the addressee is the time when both— (i) the electronic communication has become capable of being retrieved by the addressee at that address; and (ii) the addressee has become aware that the electronic communication has been sent to that address.\n- (i) the electronic communication has become capable of being retrieved by the addressee at that address; and\n- (ii) the addressee has become aware that the electronic communication has been sent to that address.\n- (i) the electronic communication has become capable of being retrieved by the addressee at that address; and\n- (ii) the addressee has become aware that the electronic communication has been sent to that address.","sortOrder":25},{"sectionNumber":"sec.25","sectionType":"section","heading":"Place of dispatch and receipt","content":"### sec.25 Place of dispatch and receipt\n\nUnless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee of an electronic communication—\nthe electronic communication is taken to have been dispatched at the place the originator has its place of business; and\nthe electronic communication is taken to have been received at the place the addressee has its place of business.\nFor the application of subsection (1) to an electronic communication—\na party’s place of business is assumed to be the location indicated by the party, unless another party demonstrates the party making the indication does not have a place of business at that location; and\nif a party has not indicated a place of business and has only one place of business, it is to be assumed that place is the party’s place of business; and\nif a party has not indicated a place of business and has more than one place of business, the place of business is that which has the closest relationship to the underlying transaction, having regard to the circumstances known to or contemplated by the parties at any time before or at the conclusion of the transaction; and\nif a party has not indicated a place of business and has more than one place of business, but paragraph (c) does not apply—it is to be assumed the party’s principal place of business is the party’s only place of business; and\nif a party is an individual and does not have a place of business—it is to be assumed the party’s place of business is the place of the party’s habitual residence.\nA location is not a place of business merely because that is—\nwhere equipment and technology supporting an information system used by a party are located; or\nwhere the information system may be accessed by other parties.\nThe sole fact that a party makes use of a domain name or electronic mail address connected to a specific country does not create a presumption that its place of business is located in that country.\ns 25 sub 2013 No. 35 s 74\n(sec.25-ssec.1) Unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee of an electronic communication— the electronic communication is taken to have been dispatched at the place the originator has its place of business; and the electronic communication is taken to have been received at the place the addressee has its place of business.\n(sec.25-ssec.2) For the application of subsection (1) to an electronic communication— a party’s place of business is assumed to be the location indicated by the party, unless another party demonstrates the party making the indication does not have a place of business at that location; and if a party has not indicated a place of business and has only one place of business, it is to be assumed that place is the party’s place of business; and if a party has not indicated a place of business and has more than one place of business, the place of business is that which has the closest relationship to the underlying transaction, having regard to the circumstances known to or contemplated by the parties at any time before or at the conclusion of the transaction; and if a party has not indicated a place of business and has more than one place of business, but paragraph (c) does not apply—it is to be assumed the party’s principal place of business is the party’s only place of business; and if a party is an individual and does not have a place of business—it is to be assumed the party’s place of business is the place of the party’s habitual residence.\n(sec.25-ssec.3) A location is not a place of business merely because that is— where equipment and technology supporting an information system used by a party are located; or where the information system may be accessed by other parties.\n(sec.25-ssec.4) The sole fact that a party makes use of a domain name or electronic mail address connected to a specific country does not create a presumption that its place of business is located in that country.\n- (a) the electronic communication is taken to have been dispatched at the place the originator has its place of business; and\n- (b) the electronic communication is taken to have been received at the place the addressee has its place of business.\n- (a) a party’s place of business is assumed to be the location indicated by the party, unless another party demonstrates the party making the indication does not have a place of business at that location; and\n- (b) if a party has not indicated a place of business and has only one place of business, it is to be assumed that place is the party’s place of business; and\n- (c) if a party has not indicated a place of business and has more than one place of business, the place of business is that which has the closest relationship to the underlying transaction, having regard to the circumstances known to or contemplated by the parties at any time before or at the conclusion of the transaction; and\n- (d) if a party has not indicated a place of business and has more than one place of business, but paragraph (c) does not apply—it is to be assumed the party’s principal place of business is the party’s only place of business; and\n- (e) if a party is an individual and does not have a place of business—it is to be assumed the party’s place of business is the place of the party’s habitual residence.\n- (a) where equipment and technology supporting an information system used by a party are located; or\n- (b) where the information system may be accessed by other parties.","sortOrder":26},{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.3-div.3","sectionType":"division","heading":"Other provisions","content":"## Other provisions","sortOrder":27},{"sectionNumber":"sec.26","sectionType":"section","heading":"Attribution of electronic communications","content":"### sec.26 Attribution of electronic communications\n\nFor a State law, unless otherwise agreed between the purported originator of an electronic communication and the addressee of the communication, the purported originator of the communication is bound by the communication only if it was sent by the purported originator or with the purported originator’s authority.\nSubsection (1) does not limit a State law that provides for—\nconduct engaged in by a person within the scope of the person’s actual or apparent authority to be attributed to another person; or\na person to be bound by conduct engaged in by another person within the scope of the other person’s actual or apparent authority.\n(sec.26-ssec.1) For a State law, unless otherwise agreed between the purported originator of an electronic communication and the addressee of the communication, the purported originator of the communication is bound by the communication only if it was sent by the purported originator or with the purported originator’s authority.\n(sec.26-ssec.2) Subsection (1) does not limit a State law that provides for— conduct engaged in by a person within the scope of the person’s actual or apparent authority to be attributed to another person; or a person to be bound by conduct engaged in by another person within the scope of the other person’s actual or apparent authority.\n- (a) conduct engaged in by a person within the scope of the person’s actual or apparent authority to be attributed to another person; or\n- (b) a person to be bound by conduct engaged in by another person within the scope of the other person’s actual or apparent authority.","sortOrder":28},{"sectionNumber":"ch.2-pt.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Additional provisions applying to contracts involving electronic communication","content":"# Additional provisions applying to contracts involving electronic communication","sortOrder":29},{"sectionNumber":"sec.26A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application and operation of this part","content":"### sec.26A Application and operation of this part\n\nThis part applies to the use of electronic communications in connection with the formation or performance of a contract between parties where the proper law of the contract is (or would on its formation be) under the State law, and so applies—\nwhether some or all of the parties are located within Australia or elsewhere; and\nwhether the contract is for business purposes, for personal, family or household purposes, or for other purposes.\ns 26A ins 2013 No. 35 s 75\n- (a) whether some or all of the parties are located within Australia or elsewhere; and\n- (b) whether the contract is for business purposes, for personal, family or household purposes, or for other purposes.","sortOrder":30},{"sectionNumber":"sec.26B","sectionType":"section","heading":"Invitation to treat regarding contracts","content":"### sec.26B Invitation to treat regarding contracts\n\nA proposal to form a contract made through one or more electronic communications that—\nis not addressed to one or more specific parties; and\nis generally accessible to parties making use of information systems;\nis to be considered as an invitation to make offers, unless it clearly indicates the intention of the party making the proposal to be bound in case of acceptance.\nSubsection (1) extends to proposals that make use of interactive applications for the placement of orders through information systems.\ns 26B ins 2013 No. 35 s 75\n(sec.26B-ssec.1) A proposal to form a contract made through one or more electronic communications that— is not addressed to one or more specific parties; and is generally accessible to parties making use of information systems; is to be considered as an invitation to make offers, unless it clearly indicates the intention of the party making the proposal to be bound in case of acceptance.\n(sec.26B-ssec.2) Subsection (1) extends to proposals that make use of interactive applications for the placement of orders through information systems.\n- (a) is not addressed to one or more specific parties; and\n- (b) is generally accessible to parties making use of information systems;","sortOrder":31},{"sectionNumber":"sec.26C","sectionType":"section","heading":"Use of automated message system for contract formation—non-intervention of individual","content":"### sec.26C Use of automated message system for contract formation—non-intervention of individual\n\nA contract formed by—\nthe interaction of an automated message system and an individual; or\nthe interaction of automated message systems;\nis not invalid, void or unenforceable on the sole ground that no individual reviewed or intervened in each of the individual actions carried out by the automated message systems or the resulting contract.\ns 26C ins 2013 No. 35 s 75\n- (a) the interaction of an automated message system and an individual; or\n- (b) the interaction of automated message systems;","sortOrder":32},{"sectionNumber":"sec.26D","sectionType":"section","heading":"Error in electronic communication regarding contracts","content":"### sec.26D Error in electronic communication regarding contracts\n\nThis section applies in relation to a statement, declaration, demand, notice or request, including an offer and the acceptance of an offer, that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with the formation or performance of a contract.\nIf—\nan individual makes an input error in an electronic communication exchanged with the automated message system of another party; and\nthe automated message system does not provide the person with an opportunity to correct the error;\nthe person, or the party on whose behalf the person was acting, has the right to withdraw the portion of the electronic communication in which the input error was made if—\nthe person, or the party on whose behalf the person was acting, notifies the other party of the error as soon as possible after having learned of the error and indicates that the person made an error in the electronic communication; and\nthe person, or the party on whose behalf the person was acting, has not used or received any material benefit or value from the goods or services, if any, received from the other party.\nThe right of withdrawal of a portion of an electronic communication under this section is not of itself a right to rescind or otherwise terminate a contract.\nThe consequences (if any) of the exercise of the right of withdrawal of a portion of an electronic communication under this section are to be determined in accordance with any applicable rule of law.\ns 26D ins 2013 No. 35 s 75\n(sec.26D-ssec.1) This section applies in relation to a statement, declaration, demand, notice or request, including an offer and the acceptance of an offer, that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with the formation or performance of a contract.\n(sec.26D-ssec.2) If— an individual makes an input error in an electronic communication exchanged with the automated message system of another party; and the automated message system does not provide the person with an opportunity to correct the error; the person, or the party on whose behalf the person was acting, has the right to withdraw the portion of the electronic communication in which the input error was made if— the person, or the party on whose behalf the person was acting, notifies the other party of the error as soon as possible after having learned of the error and indicates that the person made an error in the electronic communication; and the person, or the party on whose behalf the person was acting, has not used or received any material benefit or value from the goods or services, if any, received from the other party.\n(sec.26D-ssec.3) The right of withdrawal of a portion of an electronic communication under this section is not of itself a right to rescind or otherwise terminate a contract.\n(sec.26D-ssec.4) The consequences (if any) of the exercise of the right of withdrawal of a portion of an electronic communication under this section are to be determined in accordance with any applicable rule of law.\n- (a) an individual makes an input error in an electronic communication exchanged with the automated message system of another party; and\n- (b) the automated message system does not provide the person with an opportunity to correct the error;\n- (c) the person, or the party on whose behalf the person was acting, notifies the other party of the error as soon as possible after having learned of the error and indicates that the person made an error in the electronic communication; and\n- (d) the person, or the party on whose behalf the person was acting, has not used or received any material benefit or value from the goods or services, if any, received from the other party.","sortOrder":33},{"sectionNumber":"sec.26E","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application of Act in relation to contracts","content":"### sec.26E Application of Act in relation to contracts\n\nSubject to subsection (2) , sections 8 and 23 to 25 apply to—\na transaction constituted by or relating to a contract; or\nan electronic communication relating to the formation or a performance of a contract;\nin the same way as they apply to a transaction or electronic communication referred to in those provisions.\nHowever, this part (including subsection (1) ) does not apply to or in relation to a contract to the extent that—\nparts 1 to 3 would of their own force have the same effect as this part if this part applied; or\na law of another State (that is in substantially the same terms as parts 1 to 3 ) would of its own force have the same effect as this part if this part applied.\ns 26E ins 2013 No. 35 s 75\n(sec.26E-ssec.1) Subject to subsection (2) , sections 8 and 23 to 25 apply to— a transaction constituted by or relating to a contract; or an electronic communication relating to the formation or a performance of a contract; in the same way as they apply to a transaction or electronic communication referred to in those provisions.\n(sec.26E-ssec.2) However, this part (including subsection (1) ) does not apply to or in relation to a contract to the extent that— parts 1 to 3 would of their own force have the same effect as this part if this part applied; or a law of another State (that is in substantially the same terms as parts 1 to 3 ) would of its own force have the same effect as this part if this part applied.\n- (a) a transaction constituted by or relating to a contract; or\n- (b) an electronic communication relating to the formation or a performance of a contract;\n- (a) parts 1 to 3 would of their own force have the same effect as this part if this part applied; or\n- (b) a law of another State (that is in substantially the same terms as parts 1 to 3 ) would of its own force have the same effect as this part if this part applied.","sortOrder":34}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Yes. The Act expands the circumstances in which State-law requirements about writing, signatures, production of documents and record-keeping may be satisfied by electronic communications (see s 8 and s 11–21). It replaces a paper-only default with a technology‑neutral framework that treats electronic communications as valid where factual conditions (accessibility, integrity, reliability, recipient consent) are met. The Act also establishes default legal rules on time, place and attribution for electronic communications (s 23–26) and adds contract-specific provisions for electronic proposals, automated systems and input errors (ss 26A–26E). These changes broaden the legal forms recognised as valid while leaving intact carve-outs where other State laws prescribe particular technical requirements (s 13, s 15, s 18)."},"complexity_factors":["Many fact-specific, context-dependent standards (e.g. \"reasonable to expect... readily accessible\", \"as reliable as appropriate\") requiring case-by-case assessment (see s 11(2), s 14(1)(b)(i), s 16(2)(a), s 20(2)(a), s 21(2)(b)).","Multiple consent requirements create bilateral dependencies (recipient consent required in s 11(2)(b), s 12(2)(b), s 14(1)(c), s 16(2)(c), s 17(2)(c), s 21(2)(e)).","Interplay with other State laws and regulations that can impose specific technical requirements (s 13, s 15, s 18, s 19(2), s 20(2)(c), s 21(2)(e)).","Separate but overlapping rules for validity, signatures, production, record-keeping, time/place of dispatch and receipt, and attribution (ss 8, 11–21, 23–26) increase cross-references and conditional logic.","Contract-specific provisions (ss 26A–26E) that apply differently depending on the proper law of the contract and carve-outs where other parts would have similar effect (s 26E).","Technical record-keeping obligations for keepers, including storage of metadata to identify origin/destination and timestamps (s 21(2)(c)), increasing operational complexity.","Open-ended integrity tests with limited bright-line rules (s 16(3), s 20(3), s 21(3)), which raise litigation and administrative interpretation risks."],"plain_english_summary":"What this law does, in plain English\n\n- The Act makes electronic communications legally effective for State laws in a number of common situations where the law previously referred to paper or handwritten processes. It does so by saying that an otherwise-valid transaction or legal requirement is not defeated merely because it was done electronically (s 8). \n\n- More specifically, the Act treats electronic alternatives as meeting State-law requirements about: giving information or notices (s 11–12); signatures (s 14); producing documents (s 16–17); recording and keeping information and documents (s 19–21). In each case the electronic method meets the legal requirement only if certain factual conditions are satisfied: for example, it was reasonable to expect the information would be readily accessible for later reference, the method preserved the integrity of the information, and the recipient consents (see s 11(2), s 14(1)(a),(b),(c), s 16(2), s 20(2), s 21(2)).\n\n- The Act also sets rules about when an electronic message is sent or received (time of dispatch and receipt — s 23–24) and where it is taken to have been sent or received for legal purposes (place of dispatch and receipt — s 25). Those rules include default assumptions about a party’s place of business and allow parties to agree different arrangements (s 23(1), s 24(1), s 25(1)–(2)).\n\n- The Act clarifies when an electronic communication is attributable to (and therefore binds) a purported originator: it binds the originator only if it was sent by the originator or with the originator’s authority, subject to existing law on actual or apparent authority (s 26).\n\n- For contracts, the Act: applies to contracts whose proper law is the State law (s 26A); treats general, publicly accessible electronic proposals as invitations to make offers unless the proposer clearly intended to be bound (s 26B); says contracts formed by automated message systems are not invalid merely because no person reviewed each automated action (s 26C); and gives a limited right to withdraw part of an electronic communication if a person made an input error in interaction with another party’s automated system and certain conditions are met (s 26D). Sections 8 and 23–25 also apply to contract-related transactions and communications unless other parts would already produce the same legal effect (s 26E).\n\nWhy this matters and how it works mechanically (risks, costs, incentives, who decides)\n\n- Who pays / bears the compliance cost: parties who rely on electronic processes — businesses, government offices and individuals — must ensure their electronic methods meet the Act’s factual tests (e.g. reliability, integrity, accessibility) or obtain the recipient’s consent (see s 11(2), s 14(1)(b), s 16(2)(a), s 20(2)(a), s 21(2)(b)). Those are implementation costs (system design, storage, audit trails) borne by the sender/keeper and sometimes the addressee if consent is required. Keepers required to retain electronic communications must also store additional metadata (origin, destination, timestamps) to meet s 21(2)(c).\n\n- Incentives and behaviour change: the Act gives private parties an incentive to use electronic methods because those methods can satisfy writing, signature, production and record-keeping requirements when the statutory conditions are met (s 8; s 11–21). At the same time, the recipient’s right to withhold consent or insist on particular formats (or existing special-tech rules in other laws) creates an incentive for senders to negotiate acceptable formats or retain paper fallbacks (s 11(2)(b), s 13, s 15, s 18).\n\n- Trade-offs and opportunity costs: the Act prefers flexible, technology-neutral factual tests (\"reasonable to expect... readily accessible\", \"reliable way of maintaining integrity\") over prescribing specific technologies (see s 11(2)(a), s 14(1)(b)(i), s 16(2)(a), s 20(2)(a)). That lowers the risk of rapid technological obsolescence but makes legal compliance fact-specific and may increase litigation or administrative decision costs because courts or agencies will need to assess technical reliability case by case.\n\n- Compliance burden and administrative discretion: multiple provisions leave key assessments to context and judgment (for example, whether a method is \"as reliable as appropriate\" (s 14(1)(b)(i)) or whether integrity has been maintained (s 16(3), s 20(3), s 21(3))). That creates discretion for decision-makers and potential compliance uncertainty for users who must document and demonstrate reliability and integrity.\n\n- Interaction with other laws and regulation: the Act expressly preserves other State laws that require particular storage devices, specific electronic-signature formats or particular identification methods (s 13, s 15, s 18). Regulations may also require particular data-storage devices for keeping records (s 19(2), s 20(2)(c), s 21(2)(e)). Those carve-outs concentrate compliance obligations on certain transactions and can impose specialised technical requirements beyond the Act’s general tests.\n\n- Cross-border and jurisdictional effects: the Act applies to contracts whose proper law is the State law even when parties are overseas (s 26A). Time and place rules (s 23–25) create default assumptions about dispatch/receipt and a party’s place of business that affect timing, jurisdiction and choice-of-law-related outcomes; parties can override those defaults by agreement (s 23(1), s 24(1), s 25(1)).\n\n- Fraud, attribution and risk allocation: the attribution rule (s 26) ties binding effect to whether the communication was sent by the originator or with authority, but it does not displace ordinary legal rules about actual or apparent authority (s 26(2)). That allocation of risk shifts pressure onto parties to secure their systems and to manage authority and access to automated systems.\n\nBottom-line mechanics: the Act does not mandate specific technologies. It lets electronic messages and records satisfy statutory writing, signature, production and record-keeping requirements when (1) the method preserves integrity and accessibility, and (2) the recipient consents or the parties otherwise agree. For timing, place and attribution the Act provides default legal rules that parties can override by agreement (see s 8, s 11–21, s 23–26)."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The original 2001 Act focused on validating electronic transactions and meeting writing/signature requirements electronically. The 2013 amendments (Sections 26A-26E) significantly expanded scope to include specific contract formation rules, automated message systems, error correction rights, and invitation-to-treat provisions—essentially adding commercial/e-commerce law dimensions beyond the original 'technology neutrality' purpose."},"complexity_factors":["Moderate length with substantial repetition between 'required' and 'permitted' versions of similar provisions (Sections 11/12, 16/17)","Multiple nested conditions in signature validity (Section 14) requiring identification, reliability, and consent","Cross-references between Parts 1-3 and Part 4 (contract provisions) with conditional application rules (Section 26E)","Defined terms scattered throughout (e.g., 'give information' with 10 specific inclusions in Section 10)","Integrity maintenance tests with exceptions for 'endorsements' and 'immaterial changes' (Sections 16, 17, 20, 21)","Hierarchical place-of-business determination rules with 5 cascading scenarios (Section 25(2))","2013 amendments inserted an entire Part 4 (Sections 26A-26E) for contract-specific rules, creating overlap with general provisions"],"plain_english_summary":"This Queensland law makes sure that electronic transactions (like emails, online forms, and digital signatures) are legally valid and treated the same as paper-based transactions for most purposes under State law.\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Validates electronic transactions**: A transaction isn't invalid just because it happened electronically (Section 8).\n- **Replaces \"writing\" requirements**: If a law says something must be \"in writing,\" an electronic version counts if the recipient can access it later and consents to receiving it electronically (Sections 11-12).\n- **Allows electronic signatures**: Digital signatures are valid if they identify the person, show their intention, are reliable enough for the purpose, and the recipient consents (Section 14).\n- **Permits electronic document production**: You can provide electronic copies of documents instead of paper ones, provided the information stays intact and accessible (Sections 16-17).\n- **Allows electronic record-keeping**: You can keep records electronically instead of on paper, as long as the data remains accessible and unaltered (Sections 19-21).\n- **Sets timing and location rules**: It establishes when and where electronic communications are considered \"sent\" and \"received\" for legal purposes—usually based on business location, not server location (Sections 23-25).\n- **Addresses automated contracts**: Contracts formed by computers talking to computers (or people using automated systems) are valid, and people can correct input errors in certain circumstances (Sections 26B-26D).\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Anyone dealing with Queensland government agencies, courts, or businesses where laws require written documents, signatures, or record-keeping.\n- Businesses and consumers entering contracts electronically.\n\n**Why it matters:**\nWithout this law, you might have to print, sign, and post documents that could be handled digitally. It enables e-commerce, digital government services, and paperless offices while ensuring legal certainty about when and where electronic deals take place."},"summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The original 2001 Act focused on basic electronic transaction validity and functional equivalents for writing, signatures, and document production. Through amendments — particularly in 2013 — the scope expanded significantly to include detailed contract formation rules covering automated systems, online offers (invitations to treat), input error correction rights, and updated time/place of dispatch and receipt provisions aligned with international standards (the UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts). The Act moved from a narrow enabling statute to a more comprehensive framework governing the electronic formation and performance of contracts."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple layered conditions must all be satisfied simultaneously for electronic equivalence to apply (e.g. accessibility, integrity, and consent requirements stack on top of each other)","Distinctions between 'required' vs 'permitted' actions create parallel provisions throughout the Act","The consent requirement is context-sensitive and not uniformly defined, requiring case-by-case assessment","Time and place of dispatch/receipt rules involve multiple fallback scenarios and assumptions, particularly for parties with multiple or no clear place of business","The attribution rules for electronic communications (sec.26) interact with agency law principles, requiring knowledge of those external legal doctrines","The contract formation provisions (Part 4) overlap with Parts 1-3 and contain avoidance-of-duplication rules that require careful navigation","The input error correction right (sec.26D) has multiple conditions and limited, uncertain consequences governed by external law","Exemptions for more specific State laws (secs.13, 15, 18) mean the Act's scope can be displaced without it being self-evident on the face of the Act","The Act has been amended multiple times (2002, 2010, 2013), creating interpretive layers"],"plain_english_summary":"## What This Law Does\n\nThe *Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001* is Queensland's rulebook for making **electronic dealings legally valid**. In plain terms: if a law says you must do something \"in writing\" or with a \"signature\", this Act says an email, digital form, or electronic signature can count — as long as certain conditions are met.\n\n---\n\n## Who It Affects\n\nPretty much **everyone in Queensland** — individuals, businesses, and government agencies — whenever they deal with State laws that mention writing, signatures, or documents. Think: lodging a tax return electronically, signing a contract by email, or keeping digital business records.\n\n---\n\n## Key Rules at a Glance\n\n### ✅ Electronic Transactions Are Valid\nA deal or transaction doesn't become illegal just because it happened electronically (by email, app, website, etc.).\n\n### 📝 \"In Writing\" Can Mean Electronic\nIf a law requires something in writing (applications, notices, declarations, etc.), an electronic communication satisfies that — **provided**:\n- The information can be accessed and read later (not just a one-time flash on a screen); **and**\n- The recipient **agrees** to receive it electronically.\n\n### ✍️ Electronic Signatures Count\nAn electronic signature replaces a handwritten one if:\n- A method is used that **identifies you** and shows your **intention** (e.g. a typed name, PIN, digital certificate);\n- That method is **reliable enough** for the purpose (or is proven to have worked in practice); **and**\n- The other party **consents** to it.\n\n### 📄 Electronic Documents Can Replace Paper Ones\nIf you must produce or keep a physical document, an electronic version works — **provided**:\n- Its **integrity is maintained** (it hasn't been altered, other than minor formatting changes); **and**\n- It's stored in a way that's accessible for future reference; **and**\n- The other party **consents**.\n\n### 🗂️ Keeping Records Electronically\nIf you're legally required to keep records, digital storage counts — but you may also need to keep **metadata** (like who sent/received a message, and when) if it was originally a communication rather than a document you created yourself.\n\n### ⏰ When Was It Sent/Received?\nThe law sets default rules:\n- **Sent**: when the message leaves your system (or is received, if it never leaves your system).\n- **Received**: when it becomes accessible at the recipient's electronic address (e.g. when it hits their inbox).\n- **Location**: messages are treated as dispatched/received at the parties' **places of business**, not where the servers are.\n\n### 🤖 Online Contracts and Automated Systems\nContracts formed by **bots or automated systems** (like clicking \"Buy Now\") are **legally valid**, even without a human reviewing each step. However:\n- A public online offer (like a website listing) is generally just an **invitation to buy**, not a binding offer — unless it clearly says otherwise.\n- If you make a **typo or input error** in an automated system and the system gave you **no chance to correct it**, you may have the right to **withdraw that part** of your communication — but only if you acted quickly and haven't already benefited from the deal.\n\n---\n\n## Important Limits\n- This Act **doesn't override** other laws that specifically require a particular type of electronic method, storage device, or signature format.\n- Consent of the other party is often required — you **can't force** someone to accept electronic communications if they haven't agreed.\n- It only applies to **Queensland State laws**, not Commonwealth (federal) laws."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"circular_definition","section":"sec.14(1)(b)(ii)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"Section 14(1)(b)(ii) provides an alternative to prospective reliability assessment by allowing post-hoc proof that the method 'fulfilled the functions described in paragraph (a)'. However, paragraph (a) describes the functions the method must perform (identification + intention). So the reliability test collapses into: 'the method is acceptable if it can be proven to have been acceptable.' This is circularly self-validating and provides no independent standard for courts or parties to apply prospectively.","confidence":0.78,"description":"A signature method can satisfy the reliability requirement by being 'proven in fact to have fulfilled the functions described in paragraph (a)' — but paragraph (a) requires identification of the person AND indication of their intention. This creates a circular evidentiary standard: the method is valid if it is proven valid. The provision effectively says a signature works if it works."},{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"sec.23(1)(b)","severity":"high","reasoning":"Section 23(1)(b) states that if an electronic communication has not left the originator's information system, the time of dispatch is 'the time the electronic communication is received by the addressee.' A communication that has not left the sender's system cannot, by definition, reach the addressee's system and be received. The provision attempts to address edge cases (e.g. communications on a shared server) but produces a logical impossibility as drafted: the trigger condition for (b) — never leaving the originator's system — is incompatible with the consequence — being received by the addressee.","confidence":0.82,"description":"The fallback rule for time of dispatch — where a communication has NOT left the originator's information system — deems dispatch to occur at the time of receipt by the addressee. This is logically impossible: a communication cannot be received by an addressee if it has never left the originator's system."},{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"sec.25(2)(d)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The operative condition of s.25(2)(d) is that a party 'has more than one place of business'. The consequence is that the party is deemed to have only one place of business (the principal one). The provision thus simultaneously acknowledges the existence of multiple places of business and legally pretends there is only one. While legal fictions are permissible legislative technique, this one directly contradicts its own triggering condition without any transitional reasoning, creating interpretive confusion about what 'principal place of business' means when all places are deemed to be the only one.","confidence":0.7,"description":"Section 25(2)(d) provides that where a party has more than one place of business but s.25(2)(c) does not apply, 'it is to be assumed the party's principal place of business is the party's only place of business.' This is a legal fiction that contradicts the factual premise: the provision only activates when the party demonstrably HAS more than one place of business, yet then deems it to have only one."},{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"sec.26D(2) and sec.26D(3)","severity":"high","reasoning":"Section 26D(1) explicitly applies to 'the acceptance of an offer'. Section 26D(2) gives the right to withdraw 'the portion of the electronic communication in which the input error was made'. If the input error is in the acceptance, withdrawing that portion would mean no valid acceptance exists, and therefore no contract is formed or the contract is nullified. Yet s.26D(3) says this right is not a right to rescind or terminate the contract. The provision thus grants a right of withdrawal of the very communication that forms the contract while simultaneously denying the logical legal consequence of that withdrawal. Section 26D(4) compounds this by deferring consequences to 'applicable rule of law', providing no resolution to the contradiction it has created.","confidence":0.85,"description":"Section 26D grants a right to 'withdraw the portion of the electronic communication in which the input error was made', but s.26D(3) immediately states this right 'is not of itself a right to rescind or otherwise terminate a contract.' Withdrawing the portion of a communication constituting an acceptance of an offer — which s.26D(1) expressly includes — would logically negate contract formation, yet s.26D(3) denies that consequence."},{"type":"circular_definition","section":"sec.26E(2)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The exemption in s.26E(2)(a) asks whether Parts 1-3 would have the same effect as Part 4 'if this part applied'. But whether Part 4 applies is precisely what s.26E(2) is determining. The provision asks courts to hypothetically apply Part 4 to determine whether Part 4 should actually apply — a self-referential loop. While the legislative intent (avoiding double coverage) is discernible, the drafting creates a logically circular trigger for non-application.","confidence":0.72,"description":"Section 26E(2) provides that Part 4 does not apply where Parts 1-3 'would of their own force have the same effect as this part IF this part applied.' This is a conditional exemption that conditions non-application on a counterfactual application, creating a logically recursive self-referential clause."},{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"sec.11(2)(b) and sec.12(2)(b)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The consent requirement in s.11(2)(b) and s.12(2)(b) places the power to determine whether electronic writing satisfies legal requirements entirely in the hands of the recipient. Where the recipient is, for example, a government agency that has not formally consented to electronic communications, a sender cannot satisfy a statutory writing requirement electronically regardless of technical capability. The Act provides no mechanism to compel consent, no deemed consent where electronic systems exist, and no fallback. This creates a unilateral veto over electronic compliance that may be impossible to overcome in practice.","confidence":0.65,"description":"Both sections require consent from 'the person to whom the information is required/permitted to be given' before electronic communication satisfies the writing requirement. Where that recipient is a government body or regulator operating under a statutory duty to receive information, it is practically impossible for that body to withhold consent, yet the Act imposes no obligation on it to give consent, potentially leaving senders in limbo."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"low","section_a":"sec.8(1)","section_b":"sec.8(2)","confidence":0.6,"description":"Section 8(1) establishes a general rule that transactions are not invalid merely because they occurred electronically. Section 8(2) then carves out that general rule wherever a 'more specific provision of this chapter' applies. Since the vast majority of the substantive provisions in Chapter 2 (ss.11-26E) are more specific provisions dealing with validity conditions, s.8(2) effectively swallows s.8(1), rendering the general rule nearly meaningless as a standalone protection."},{"severity":"low","section_a":"sec.23(1)(a)","section_b":"sec.24(1)(a)","confidence":0.55,"description":"Section 23 defines dispatch as when a communication 'leaves' the originator's information system. Section 24(2) deems receipt to occur 'when it reaches the addressee's electronic address.' In transmission scenarios involving intermediate servers or store-and-forward systems, a communication may 'leave' the originator's system and 'reach' the addressee's address simultaneously or in legally ambiguous sequence, potentially making dispatch and receipt contemporaneous — collapsing the legal distinction the Act is designed to maintain."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"sec.14(1)(c)","section_b":"sec.15(c)","confidence":0.73,"description":"Section 14(1)(c) requires the recipient's consent before an electronic signature method satisfies a statutory signature requirement. Section 15(c) preserves other State laws that mandate 'a particular method' to identify the originator without any consent mechanism. A mandatory State law requiring a specific electronic identification method under s.15 could operate without the recipient's consent, directly contradicting the consent precondition in s.14(1)(c) for the same transaction."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"sec.16(2)(c)","section_b":"sec.18","confidence":0.7,"description":"Section 16(2)(c) requires the recipient's consent before electronic document production satisfies a statutory requirement. Section 18 preserves other State laws mandating production by specific electronic communication types without any consent requirement. Where such a specific State law requires production by a particular electronic method, a party may be legally compelled to produce documents electronically without having consented — directly contradicting the consent architecture of s.16."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"sec.26B(1)","section_b":"sec.26C","confidence":0.67,"description":"Section 26B treats a publicly accessible electronic proposal as an invitation to treat (not a binding offer) unless it clearly indicates an intention to be bound. Section 26C provides that a contract formed by interaction of an automated message system and an individual is valid without individual review. Together, these provisions create a tension: an automated system responding to an 'invitation to treat' (under s.26B) could automatically form contracts (under s.26C) without any human review, potentially binding the system operator to contracts they never intended the automated response to form, since the original proposal was only an invitation."}]}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/electronic-transactions-queensland-act-2001","history":"/api/acts/electronic-transactions-queensland-act-2001/history","analysis":"/api/acts/electronic-transactions-queensland-act-2001/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/electronic-transactions-queensland-act-2001/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/electronic-transactions-queensland-act-2001/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/electronic-transactions-queensland-act-2001/documents"}}