---
id: KB-SC-014
url: https://app.codecontract.io/help/smartcheck/certifying-an-agreement-made-by-email
idioma: en
categoria: smartcheck
subcategoria: certificar
audiencia: usuario
nivel: intermedio
actualizado: 2026-08-13
tambienEn: [es]
relacionados: [KB-SC-009, KB-TZ-012]
citadoPor: [KB-SC-011]
---

# Certifying an agreement made by email

_What was agreed in an email thread exists. Whether it can be proven a year later is another matter._

**Responde a:** evidential value of an email · certifying an agreement by email · does email count as a contract · proving what was agreed in writing

A considerable share of real agreements is closed in an email thread: a price, a deadline, a special condition. That counts, but the evidence lives in two private mailboxes and degrades over time — messages get deleted, systems change, people leave.

## What to do when the agreement matters

1. **Summarise it in a closing message** — "To confirm: we agreed X, with deadline Y and condition Z." One paragraph, unambiguous.
2. **Ask for explicit confirmation** — A clear "agreed"; silence is not acceptance in most cases.
3. **Keep it in that relationship's file** — With the full thread, not just your summary.
4. **And certify it if the amount or risk justifies it** — It fixes that the content existed on that date and has not changed.

> [!IMPORTANT]
> The first step is worth more than the other three together. Most later disputes are not about whether there was an agreement, but about exactly what was agreed — and a confirmed closing summary removes that argument entirely.

## What a certified email proves and does not

| It proves | It does not prove |
| --- | --- |
| That the content existed on that date | That the other party read it |
| That it has not changed since | That the writer had authority to bind |
| That it was in your possession | That the agreement is valid if the law requires another form |

> [!WARNING]
> The second row on the right matters with companies: whoever negotiates by email cannot always commit their company. For significant agreements, have someone who can sign do so, and that is no longer an email: it is a signature.

## When it is worth moving to signature

**En corto**

- When the amount justifies a dispute.
- When the agreement changes terms of an existing contract.
- When deadlines start running from it.
- And when the other party changes contact person frequently.

In those four cases, a signature request costs the same as the time spent writing the closing email and leaves far stronger evidence: identity, moment and exact content accepted.

> [!NOTE]
> None of this invalidates email. A well-kept thread, with a confirmed and certified summary, is reasonable evidence for the vast majority of commercial relationships; moving to signature is for when something important is at stake.

**Does a text message count?**

As an indication yes; with the same limits as email, and easier to lose.

**Must the whole thread be certified?**

The closing message and confirmation suffice, keeping the whole thread.

**What if the other side denies it?**

That is where a provable date and unaltered content do their work.

## Ejemplos

**Two companies agree a volume discount across a twenty-email thread.**

- Write a closing message and ask for confirmation
- Keep it certified in the client's file

→ A year later, with a different contact, the agreement is not disputed.

**An agreement closes in an email thread and nobody seals it.**

- Seals the thread when it closes

→ What was agreed is provable a year later.

**The thread keeps growing after the agreement.**

- Seals the exact point of agreement

→ The seal points at the agreement, not the whole conversation.

**A single email is sealed without context.**

- Seals the complete thread

→ The proof is understood without explanation.

**Each party keeps their own version of the thread.**

- They share the seal reference

→ Both parties refer to the same thing.

**A contract is signed and the earlier thread is discarded.**

- Keeps the thread that explains what was agreed

→ The context outlives the contract.