transactions in electronic form, and state that transactions will not be held to be unenforceable simply because they are conducted in an electronic form. 190 The Model Law’s cardinal principle of non-discrimination stipulates that data messages may not be denied legal effect solely on the basis of being in an electronic format.191 The principle relies on functional equivalence approach which is based on an analysis of the purpose and function of the traditional paper-based requirements192 such as ability to be legible, unaltered overtime, reproduced, authenticated by means of signature, and to be in a form acceptable to public authorities and courts, with a view to determine how the stated purposes and functions could be fulfilled through electronic techniques.193 The Model Law extends the scope of functional equivalence principle to writing, signature and originality.194 It further sets out criteria once met by data messages, enables data messages to enjoy the same level of legal recognition as corresponding paper documents performing the same function.195 2.4.2.1 An overview of the Model Law The general provisions enshrine article 1, article 2, article 3 and article 4, which underscore the sphere of application of the Model Law, definitions of key terms, interpretation of the Model Law, and variations of provisions by agreement respectively. Chapter II of part I covers article 5, and article 5 bis as adopted in 1998, article 6, article 7, article 8, article 9 and article 10 which respectively pertain to application of legal requirements to data messages namely, legal recognition of data messages, incorporation by reference, writing requirement, signature requirement, originality and integrity of data messages, admissibility and evidential weight of data messages, and retention of data messages. Articles 5 to 10 are described as mandatory because they provide well established rules regarding the form of legal transactions, in line with mandatory statutory requirements in paper-based contracts.196 It is observed that Article 3 on the interpretation, provides that regard 190 Fitzgerald (2007: 506). Gregory (2003-2004: 314). 192 Pistorius (2002: 129 at 134). 193 Ahmad (2009: 379). 194 Ahmad (2009: 378). 195 Ahmad (2009: 380). 196 Pistorius (2002: 129 at 136). 191 21