Correspondence is a tool for proving the right, and in light of the technical development, electronic messages have become the focus of attention of researchers in the humanities. Based on this correspondence and the negotiations that precede it, the judge interprets the contract according to the common intention of the parties, and its assessment is up to the judge of the subject matter. Based on the negotiations, the judge has the authority to interpret the contract. When the terms of the contract are ambiguous and require interpretation, the judge may resort to the apparent will. If it is not, he resorts to the hidden will. The judge may rely on the rules of jurisprudence when interpreting, and he may interpret the contract based on the nature of custom and current transactions or according to the type of contract. These are all basic rules that may be. The basis in this scope of interpretation of these correspondences is the common intention of the contracting parties. As for the legal authority in proof, the Iraqi law in the Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Law granted equality in authority to electronic and traditional documents, but in some conditions stipulated in Article 13 of the Electronic Signature Law, as well as Egyptian law.
Al-Omari et al. (Sun,) studied this question.