Hi paul. What were my "stated sections" that allowed the signature to be omitted?

So you're getting my drift now? Law is very vast and confusing which is why it should be left to lawyers. Can you see how baffling your comments are to posters and silent observers. There is existing legislation that effectively dispenses the requirement for an "executed agreement" to be signed under the aforesaid sections of this Act.

Pt, there is no legal requirement for any signature whatsoever, whether it is a signature box or whether it is signed (or dated for that matter). A copy of terms and conditions suffices for any arisings of such disputes under these aforedsaid sections. So, contrary to numerous postings within this thread, requests made under sections 77-79 need only be satisfied with a copy of the T&Cs of the agreement. Hope this is helpful.

May I suggest to you that an executed agreement as per the stated sections does not actually have to be signed? Furthermore, could you clarify that a copy of an "executed agreement" shall be a "true copy"?

Funny that such an exhausting thread doesn't reveal such proof of success. After perusing this thread for over an hour, may I ask what you would interpret to be an executed agreement? (under same sections).

Do you know of any successful cases with regards to these sections?

So a claim can be brought under these sections??

I have never read such misguided information before in my life. Particularly regarding s.77-78 of the Act. May I ask, has anyone actually appeared before a court bringing a claim under these sections?