The research subject encompasses domestic and international approaches to legal qualification of electronic civil law agreements and identification of persons expressing will in such transactions. Particular attention focuses on interpreting article 160 of the Russian Civil Code requirement to "reliably determine the person who expressed will" in electronic transactions. The author examines opposing doctrinal approaches: conservative (limiting electronic form recognition to enhanced qualified electronic signatures) and liberal (allowing any identification methods). The study analyzes Russian civil law, case law, UNCITRAL conventions, and private law unification acts, examining practical consequences for contract validity. The methodology comprises formal-legal, judicial practice analysis, comparative-legal, systematic analysis, and functional methods. Scientific novelty manifests in two aspects: first, developing a classification of electronic transaction form qualification approaches, substantiating conservative and liberal approaches, and systematizing their arguments; second, creating an original approach to electronic form qualification and person identification within domestic legal order. The author proposes understanding the legislative identification requirement as an evaluative criterion allowing written form compliance when using any technical means ensuring reliable participant determination. Enhanced qualified electronic signature creates only authenticity presumption but is not the sole permissible identification method. To resolve contradictions between approaches, a cumulative will expression approach is proposed, transitioning from analyzing single will expressions during transactions to analyzing totality of expressions made before and after transaction execution.
Daniil Dmitrievich Dzhumagulov (Tue,) studied this question.