Issues associates with communicating the architect notice by means of e-mail under PAM 2006

Abstract

Under PAM Form of Contract 2006, the Architect is empowered to issue various notices and instructions. As stated in the form of contract, all notices must b e communicated, sent out or delivered by hand, mail or facsimile transmission. Any notice which is sent out by means other than that stated in the contract may b e rendered as not valid, as such the receiver can choose to ignore it. But in today's advanced electronic environment, most Architects' communicate or sent out their notices b y using e-mails - a method which is not mentioned in the contract. Does this mean the notices are ineffective or inoperative? This may not b e so, because with the passing of Electronic Commerce Act 2006, the Architect may now send out or issue the related notices b y using e-mail. Section 3 (2) of the Acts provides that e-mail can b e used as a means of communication between contracting parties, if they consented to it b y conduct. But there are several issues that need to b e looked into - will the use of e-mail satisfies PAM 2006 notice requirement, i.e. written notice, authentication of e-mail sender, recipient and address, electronic signatures, time notices deemed served, received and acknowledgement receipt? The main aim of this research is to identify the issues associated with communicating Architect e-mail notices under PAM 2006. This research focuses on PAM 2006 Architect notice and selected commercial cases from the United Kingdom, Australia, Malaysia and Singapore. The methodology for this research is data analysis. This research found, Electronic Commerce Act 2006, allows the Architect to use e-mail as means to communicate related notice, provided consent was obtained by conduct. E-mail notices must satisfy PAM 2006 notice requirements for it to b e rendered valid. Other related issues include difficulties to prove time of receipt and authentication of e-mail.