Abstract
The research paper focusses on the validity and enforceability of an online contract. In India, all agreements and contracts including the online contracts are governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Since the online contracts are concluded through the electronic medium, therefore, the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are also applicable to the e-contracts. Commercial transactions are probably the most important and sensitive business matters; therefore, they are carried out through contracts. Online contracting raises novel legal issues such as offer, acceptance, consent, formation and validity of e-contracts types of digital contracts and the issue of jurisdiction, therefore, it becomes necessary to understand the connotation and implication of these issues. Similarly, the issue of capacity to contract to form a legally binding contract of any type, requires that all parties must have the legal capacity to enter into a contract. This requirement excludes groups such as minors from entering into legally binding agreements through electronic medium.
Keyword: Contract Law, E-Contract Agreementand Information Technology.
- Introduction
Information Technology has emerged as an all-pervasive force that impacts the lives of people across the world and enables people in the 21-century to have an access to new opportunities of employment, business, growth, prosperity etc. E-contract is expected to improve productivity and competitiveness of participating in business by providing access to an online global market place with millions of customers and thousands of products and services. The law of contract, however, has not been amended directly, but the nuances of electronic governance and the recognition of electronic commerce have influenced this law to a great extent albeit indirectly. The document, agreement, offer, communication, proposal and acceptance, in fact everything that is of essence in the formation of contract has got recognized in its electronic version, where the mere click of the virtual button results in a binding contract. Prior to this enactment, there would have been great doubts in the minds of parties who desired to enter into electronic contracts. Such uncertainties stemmed from the fact that, in certain cases, the data messages expressing offer and acceptance are generated by computers without immediate human intervention, thus raising doubts as to the expression of intent by the parties.[1]
- International Protocol to Regulate e-Contract
Since the advent of globalization and boom in the information technology the world has been reduced in a global village and thus, the conventional norms regulating the international contracts have witnessed a dynamic change. Now it is possible for the parties sitting at two different places to enter into contractual relations instantly with the aid of the information technology. This metamorphosis has necessitated the U.N. O. to adopt certain conventions to regulate the e-contracts for the harmonization and unification of international trade and commerce. To achieve the purpose, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has drafted a Model law to support the commercial use of Internet to enter into e-contracts, technically known as the Model Law on Electronic Commerce, 1996. The Model Law primarily regulates the formation and validity of e-contracts, data messages, electronic data interchange, legal recognition of paperless e-contracts, etc. Secondly, the UN adopted the Convention on Electronic communication in International Contracts (2005) which aims to regulate the use on electronic communications in connection with the formation and performance of a contract between parties irrespective of their nationalities. The Convention mandates that a communication or a contract shall not be denied validity or enforceability on the sole ground that it is in the form of an electronic communication; and adds that whether a party is willing to use or accept electronic communication will be inferred from the conduct of the party.[2] Thirdly, to regulate the international sale of goods the UNO adopted the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The Convention regulates the sale of goods between the contracting parties of different nationalities and provides for the formation of contract, obligations of the sellers and buyers, remedies for the breach of contract, passing of risk, suspension of performance and anticipatory breach, exemption from liability to pay damages, preservation of goods etc. Fourthly, in order to build a legal framework for the authentication of the e-contracts through the signature function in an electronic environment, the UNCITRAL adopted a Model Law on Electronic Commerce which provides for s set of basic rules of conduct for various parties that may become involved in the use of electronic signatures.
- Information Technology
Information means knowledge, communication received concerning a particular fact or circumstance.[3] Information means any material in any form, including records, documents memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic from and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.[4] Information includes data, message, text, images, sound, voice, codes, computer programmes, software and data bases or micro film or computer generated micro fiche;[5] Information Technology is the theory and practice of using computers to store and analyse information.[6] Information technology has been variously defined which consists of computers and its network. Hardware and software facilitate the systems’ abilities to manage information in a useful way for the professionals.[7] The information technology deals with communication, storage, processing and use of information for a variety of valuable uses.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 accords legal recognition to e-contact. The preamble of the Act provides for “legal recognition for transaction carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication which involve use of alternatives to paper based methods of communication and storage of information.”[8] The requirement of the contract to be in the written, type written and printed form is satisfied by Section 4 of the Act when it categorically provides that “…such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied is such information or matter is – (a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; or (b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.”[9] The Indian judiciary has also acknowledged the substitution of the paper documentation by the electronic documentation especially when it can be preserved in a permanent form and can be retrieved from the computer software. In this sequel the High Court of Karnataka ruled in Sudarshan Cargo Pvt. Ltd. V. Techvac Engineering Pvt. Ltd.[10] that “technology is taking giant steps and the business transaction are being conducted through the use of digital technology and communication systems. And also with the business community as well as individuals increasingly using computers to create, transmit and store information in the electronic form instead of traditional paper documents and for facilitating e-commerce and e-governance the IT Act, came into force.”[11]
- Electronic Signature
Electronic signature is used not only to verify the authenticity of the message and the claimed identity of the sender but also to verify massage integrity. Wherever there is a requirement of any law to provide the information or any other matter, shall be authenticated by affixing the signature on any document shall be signed or bear the signature of any person, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if a matter is authenticated by means of electronic signature.[12] In Shaktibhog Foods Ltd v. Kola Shipping Ltd.,[13] the Court considered an appeal against an order referring disputes to arbitration in London under English Arbitration Act, 1996. The court took the view that e-mails exchanged between parties clearly indicated that the said existence of arbitration agreement can be determined from a document signed by parties, letters, telex, or other means of agreement.[14]
- “E” Beginning to from information Technology
The twist of ‘E’ born from information technology is an Electronic system, ‘Electronic’ means all paperless works. E-contract, e-commerce, electronic signature, e-business, e-governance, e-payment, e-banking and electronic evidence working for an electronic data, electronic form, electronic Gazette, electronic signature and electronic record.
- Concept of Conventional Contract and E-Contract
Before the advent of the information technology contracts were regulated by the law of contract, when the contracts were executed and signed on paper and were enforced strictly in accordance with the statutory law. However, the information technology brought a paradigm shift in the field of science and technology, which changed the landscape and modus operandi of the trade and commerce where the trade and commerce is carried out through the paperless contracts. In the paper contracts, the parties come into physical contact to ascertain the terms and conditions of the contract drafted by the legal professionals and, thus involve the cost of professionals, printing and consumption of enormous time. Moreover, there were less chances of misrepresentation, concealment of material facts and fraud since the contracting parties used to be in close proximity. In contradistinction to the conventional contracts the e-contracts are concluded through electronic means, such as e-mail, the interaction of an individual with an electronic agent, such as a computer program, or the interaction of at least two electronic agents that are programmed to recognize the existence of a contract. While there are advantages of e-contracts in the form of easy access, fast business transactions, improved documentary accuracy, saving of time and money on the one hand, and the problem of restricted storage, unassured security, dependency on the proprietary software on the other. But over and above, the mechanism of e-contract has revolutionized the world of trade and commerce in terms of time and space. Moreover, the electronic contracts can be concluded by other means such as, contracting email, or Facebook and it considered electronic contract by writing. Though the e-contracts are executed through the Internet yet the basic principles of the statutory law of contract shall regulate the formation of the contract, validity of contract, adequacy of consideration and other facets of the e-contracts. Both the contracts can be compared and evaluated in terms of the ensuing parameters.
- Formation and validity of contracts
The formation of a contract assumes significant importance in the real world, as under English law as well as under Indian law, all the rights and liabilities of the parties’ flow from the time the contract is formed.[15] The terms signify the completion of a contract as a binding relation between parties.[16] UNCITRAL Provide that “in the context of contract formation, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an offer and the acceptance of an offer may be expressed by means of data messages. Where a data message is used in the formation of a contract, that contract shall not be denied validity or enforceability on the sole ground that a data message was used for that purpose.[17]
Validity of a contract formed through electronic means, “where in a contract formation, the communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, the revocation of proposals and acceptances, as the case may be are expressed in electronic form or by means of an electronic record, such contract shall not be deemed to be unenforceable solely on the ground that such electronic form or means was used for that purpose.”[18] The binding force of a contract concluded through internet depends on the communication of offer and its acceptance, not by the fact whether it is reduced into documentary form or in an electronic for. What is important is to gather the intention of the parties to the contract not the form and medium of its formation and communication.
6.2 Electronic Offer
When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.[19] Advertisement on website may or may not constitute an offer as offer and invitation to treat are two distinct concepts. Being an offer to unspecified person, it is probably an invitation to treat, unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed.[20]
6.3 Electronic Acceptance
When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted becomes a promise.[21] Unequivocal and unconditional communication of acceptance is required to be made in terms of the offer, to create a valid e-contract. The critical issue is when acceptance takes effect, to determine where and when the contract comes into existence. The general receipt rule is that acceptance is effective when received. For contracting no conclusive rule is settled. The applicable rule of communication depends upon reasonable certainty of the message being received. When parties connect directly, without a server, they will be aware of failure or partial receipt of a message.[22]
6.4 E-Contract Consideration
Contracts result only when a promise is made in exchange for something in return. This something in return is called ‘consideration’. The rule of consideration strictly applies to the e-contracts also. In online contract for sale and purchase of goods, consideration flowing from the purchaser is secured by deposit of money through online banking in the account of seller then only the seller delivers the goods to the buyer. In fact, consideration is not an issue that obstructs or impairs the validity of the e-contract.
6.5 Free Consent
Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion,[23] undue influence,[24] fraud,[25] misrepresentation,[26] mistake.[27] Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.
Free consent is an essential prerequisite of a valid contract. In online contracts there is no scope for negotiation since they are standard form contracts. This is a great disadvantage for the contracting parties using computer to conclude contracts. But the option “take it or leave it” transaction is always to the user. In the case of LIC of India Vs Consumer Education and Research Centre,[28] the Supreme Court has held that “in dotted line contracts there would be no occasion for a weaker party to bargain as to assume to have equal bargaining power.” He has either to accept or leave the service or goods in terms of the dotted line contract. His option would be either to accept the unreasonable or unfair terms or forgo the service forever.” Hence, it can be concluded that the user should be prudent while giving his consent to avoid troubles.[29]
- E-Mail Contracting
Generally, all electronic communications are instantaneous. Commentators differ as to whether the postal rule will apply to e-mail messages and often adopt the view that the general postal rule is inapplicable and the receipt rules apply to e-mail communication. This principle is reflected in Article 15 of the UNCITRAL Model Law i.e. the receipt rule also adopted in Section 12 and 13 of the Indian IT Act, 2000.[30] As the internet transmission of messages is not always error free and may have technical failures, interceptions, disruptions when being transmitted through intermediaries, the intended recipient may not receive or receive delayed communication.[31]
- Jurisdiction of E-Contract
E-Contract can give rise to issues of jurisdiction while pursuing any issue related to e-contracts. In Casio India Co. Ltd. V. Ashita Tele Services Pvt. Ltd.[32]the Delhi High Court held that once the website is accessed from Delhi, it is enough to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. The Allahabad High Court with respect to the formation of electronic contracts gave a landmark judgment.[33] In P.R. Transport Agency V. Union of India & Others,[34]one of the issues before the Allahabad High Court was “does the Court have jurisdiction?” In this case, P R Transport Agency (PRTA) was awarded a tender by BCCL in Jharkhand. The acceptance of the PRTA’s bid was conveyed through an e-mail. The e-mail was received at Chamauli, Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). The respondent contended that since the tender had taken place in Jharkhand, no cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh. The Court relied on Sec 13(3) of the Information Technology Act and held that when the mail was sent, it was intended for the address from where the Company was working. Since, the office of the Company was in Chamauli and Varanasi, both of which fell within U.P so the High Court had jurisdiction. So, a partial cause of action arose which allows the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction. There were other issues also discussed by the Court, but for our consideration, I have focused on the issue of place in case of Electronic Contract under section 13 of the IT Act.[35]
Personal jurisdiction is the right of a court to call a person before it to reply to allegations made by another party. The plaintiff, by virtue of filing suit, prefers the jurisdiction in which he elects to have the dispute heard. The defendant after that has the option of accepting the forum or filing a motion to dismiss in order to escape the judgment of that jurisdiction on the substantive issue of the case. Traditionally, a court could only exercise personal jurisdiction over persons present in the State in which the action was brought.[36] However, this rule became less effective as interactions increased between persons who are geographically distant.
- Digital E-Contract Through Website
The construct of contracting appears on the face of it to be a simple adaptation of existing principles and practices to ban emerging medium. Looked at from this perspective the quote elicited above of Jay Dratler appears appropriate. The US Appeals Court reiterated this in Resister.com, Inc. v. Verio Inc.[37], when it held:
“while new commerce on the Internet has exposed courts to many new situations, it has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract.”
It is indeed correct that first principles remain the same irrespective of the medium. However, understanding and applying such first principles are not as clear and simple, as the above statements may indicate. Scratch the surface and the simplistic notion disappears like morning mist and the real depth of the construct and the complexities involved therein stand exposed.[38] Generally there are three types of e-contracts as follow:
9.1 Click-wrap, Agreement
Click-wrap, Agreements are mostly found in the software installation process. The user has to click either ‘Accept’ or ‘Decline’ to accept or reject the agreement respectively. These agreements lack a certain amount of bargain power. Choosing to make payments online or choosing to reject it is an example of using a click wrap agreement.[39] The above statement clears even WhatsApp doesn’t allow us to enter further into the application then the case more complex in other applications. Whenever we install any kind of application/software or website, the terms and conditions clause always come bundled with them.[40] In case of a clickwrap Agreement, the term and conditions are mentioned on a website to which a user indicates his acceptance by clicking on the ‘I agree’ button on the screen. Sometimes in place of the ‘I agree’ button similar connotations indicating acceptance of a user may be used. There have been analyzed by the court. In Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.[41] the court held certain terms of the Second Life Clickwrap Agreement unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. In a landmark decision in Hotmail Corp v. Van $ Money Pie Inc,[42] Hotmail sued its customers for sending spam mails as if the mail was sent from Hotmail account. According to Hotmail such actions clearly violated the express clause of the services agreement entered into by the customers at the time to opening an e-mail account.[43] The court held that the customers had violated the terms of contract signed with Hotmail and held the Clickwrap Agreement to be enforceable in a court of law. Further, in I. Lan Systems, Inc v. Netscout Service Level Corpn.,[44] the Federal District court held that a Clickwrap contract is fully valid and enforceable.
9.2 Browse-wrap Agreements
In a Browse Wrap Contract, its terms are a part of the website content but, does not require a user to specifically grant has assent and mere browsing of website may constitute a user’s consent. In Hubbert v. Dell Corp.,[45] repeated notice to read terms was displayed through a hyperlink on website of Dell. The court held that it put the consumers of Dell on notice of the terms and condition. However, in Specht v. Netscape,[46] where terms were mentioned much below the download button for downloading a software the court held that clicking the download button did not manifest assent of a user to terms but only assent to download the software. In PDC Laboratories, Inc. v. Hach Co.,[47]Court upheld enforceability of Browse wrap Agreement observing that as the terms were sufficiently visible and hyperlink in blue was clearly conspicuous.[48] However,inHines v. Overstock.com, Inc.,[49] the court observed that there was no sufficient notice to a party as only one sentence indicated that the party will be bound by terms on website. The defendant’s Terms and Conditions stated that “entering this site will constitute your acceptance of these terms and conditions.” The court observed that while determining validity of a Browse wrap Agreement it is important to analyze whether a user “has actual or constructive notice of a site’s terms and conditions prior to using the site.”[50]
9.3 Shrink wrap Agreements
These contracts are the license agreement by which the terms and conditions of the contract are enforced upon the contracting parties and are usually present on the plastic or in manuals accompanying with the software products which the consumer buys.[51] Shrink wrap Agreements have met with some criticisms by the courts and a court may not enforce a contract it is of the view that such a contract is ‘unconscionable at the time it was made’. InSpecht v. Netscape Communication Corp,[52] the United States District Court for Southern district, New York held a license agreement in Smart Download software was not binding on the plaintiff and rejected the plea to compel arbitration for plaintiff’s breach of license agreement.[53]
The Provision of ‘Electronic Record’[54] information technology acceptance on the Internet and communication and revocation proposals[55] through click-wrap agreement proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking, by which it intends to communication.
- Facts of E-Contracts
Before exploring the various aspects of a contract and how each are impacted due to the electronic medium, it may be expedient to explore first the various forms of electronic contracts or e-contracts. Electronic contracting automatically brings to mind online transactions but e-contracts are not restricted or limited to these. The entire gamut of contracts, on or using the electronic medium, traverses both the offline and online domains.[56] A broad categorization of such agreements or contracts is as under:
- online contracts (on any computer device including a mobile phone), which may either fall within the category of “click-wrap” or “browse-wrap” agreement.[57]
- Offline contracts, which may be segregated further:
- Contracts in electronic medium using electronic Signatures (not amounting to Digital Signatures) and
- Contracts concluded using e-mails.
Both forms of electronic contracts or e-contracts give rise to general principles and also to specific interpretation of applicable legislation. The general concepts such as “click-wraps” or Shrink-wraps” are discussed herein before and the specifics under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) is then set out to demonstrate the adaption of the UNCITRAL Model Laws and also precedent laws of foreign Courts in evolving this field of law.[58]
Section 13 of the Information Technology Act 2000 provides for the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic record while section 5 provides as to the contract as to when the communication of the proposal is complete,[59] thus the communication of the contract through the electronic medium is valid even in the absence of a paper document, and agreement is enforceable by law.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 contains provisions dealing with, among others, how a contract can be formed electronically. It has not amended the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as regards the legal requirement for the formation of a valid contract, it only provides legal certainty as to the conclusion of contracts by electronic means[60]. It deals not only with the formation of the contract, but also with the form in which an offer and acceptance are communicated electronically. Signing or authenticating the paper document ensures its validity and enforceability. Thus, documenting a transaction on paper is a legally recognized form. Law may recognize any other form and pattern for the conclusion of a contract and if it is so the transaction could still be valid and enforceable as in the case of the Information Technology Act, 2000 since the Information Technology Act, recognizes such form of contract and its communication and acceptance in relation to electronic transactions. This does not change the basic principles of the contract and the very provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are still applicable.
- Suggestions and Conclusion
Since e-contract is not a new type of contract but a novel way of entering into the contract, therefore, no separate and independent legislation is required to govern the e-contracts rather the fundamental principles of the law of contract should govern the e-contracts. The fundamental principles of the law of contract needs to be refashioned in terms of the information technology. The need of the time and technology is not to enact an independent piece of legislation but to amend the very provisions of the law of contract in terms of the e-contracts and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Further, the enforcement mechanism needs to be revamped to meet the challenges thrown by the technology. Certain provisions, for example, the revocation of the acceptance after the dispatch of the letter of acceptance needs to be reconsidered because after acceptance of the proposal there is no scope of revocation since no speedier means of transmission is available to revoke the acceptance as the communication of acceptance is communicated instantly with the push of the button. Last but not the least, the issue of jurisdiction of courts in the event of accrual of dispute is the critical area to be addressed by the law especially when the contracting parties, for example the buyer and seller in the case of online transaction, are at geographically distant locations. Normally the place or residence of the opposite party or the place of his work or office or the branch office is the place where he can file the suit. But in the online contract the present rule of jurisdiction poses the problem for the online purchaser to file the suit at the place of the opposite parties which is geographically at a distant place, thus rendering the judicial process for seeking justice as infructuous, extraordinarily expensive and cumbersome, therefore, the verdict of the Delhi High Court in Casio India should be the law when it ruled that the courts at the place of the purchaser from where he accessed the website should have jurisdiction to entertain such suits. Therefore, it is urgently necessary for the law to keep pace with the science and technology, which is in the process of transformation every moment, if it is of any relevance to the society.
***
* Assistant Professor, Faculy of Law, Kumaun University, SSJ Campus Almora. Uttarakhand. Email- dalbeerlal.law@gmail.com
[1] Dr. V. D. Dudeja, Information technology and Cyber Laws, ‘A Mission with Vision’ 176 (Commonwealth 1stEdtion 2001).
[2] Dr. J.P Mishra, An introduction to Cyber Law, 253 (Central Law Publications, 2014).
[3]www.dictionary.com last visited on April 29, 2020.
[4] Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act 2005. No. 22 2005. (India)
[5] Section 2(v) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. (India)
[6] Collins Corbulid, Advanced Illustrated Dictionary.
[7] Dr. V. D. Dudeja, Information Technology and Cyber Law. 01 (Commonwealth First Published, 2001).
[8]Karnika Seth, Computers, Internet and New Technology Laws, A comprehensive reference work with special focus on developments in India. 79-80 (Second Edition 2016)
[9] Section 4 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (India).
[10]Sudarshan Cargo Pvt. Ltd. V. Techvac Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2013 SCC (India)
[11] N. S. Nappinai, Technology Laws Decoded, 468 (LexisNexis 2017)
[12] Section 5 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (India). The term electronic signature is substituted y Act 10 of 2009, Section 2 (2), for “digital signature” (with effect from October 2009)
[13]Shaktibhog Foods Ltd V. Kola Shipping Ltd., 2009(2) SCC 134, AIR 2009 SC 12.
[14]Supra note 8 at 80-81
[15] Dr. Talat Fatima, Cybercrimes 40 (Eastern Book Company 1st Edition 2011).
[16]Ibid. at p 40
[17] Article 11(1) UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, with Guide to Enactment 1996 with additional article 5 bis as adopted in 1998. (United Nations New York (1999). (May 4, 2020.10.00 PM) https://www.uncitral.org /pdf /english /texts /electcom/05-89450_Ebook.pdf.
[18] Section 10-A, The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000).
[19] Section 2(a) Indian Contract Act, 1872. (India)
[20] Benita Ezeigbo, E-contracts, Essentials, Variety and legal Issues (May 6, 2020.) https://www.grin.com/ document /427203
[21] Section 2(b) Indian Contract Act, 1872. (India)
[22]http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/ecta.htm. Last Updated on May 6, 2020.
[23] Section 15, Indian Contract Act, 1872. (India)
[24] Section 16, Indian Contract Act, 1872. (Act, No 9 of 1872).
[25] Section 17, Indian Contract Act, 1872. (Act, No 9 of 1872).
[26] Section 18, Indian Contract Act, 1872. (Act, No 9 of 1872).
[27] Section 20, 21, 22, Indian Contract Act, 1872. (Act, No 9 of 1872).
[28]LIC of India Vs Consumer Education and Research Centre, 1995 AIR 1811, 1995 SCC (5) 482
[29]Dr.S.Sethuram, et al, “E-Contracts in India: The Legal Framework, Issues and Challenges” 4 International Journal of Emerging Innovations in Science and Technology. 14-15 (2018).
[30] Seth Karnika, Computers, Internet and New Technology Laws, A comprehensive reference work with
special focus on developments in India. 76 (Second Edition 2016)
[31]Ibid. at 76.
[32]Casio India Co. Ltd. V. Ashita Tele Services Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 27 PTC 265 Delhi.
[33]https://indianlawwatch.com/practice/e-contracts-and-the-law/. Last Updated on May 8, 2020.
[34]P.R. Transport Agency V. Union of India & Others, AIR 2006 All 23
[35]https://indiacontractlaw.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/p-r-transport-agency-v-union-of-india/ Last Updates May 31, 2020. 09.55 PM
[36] Jurisdictional Issues in Electronic Contracts, Chapter 5, 215 (May 8, 2020). https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in /bitstream/10603/49009/13/13_chapter%205.pdf.
[37]Resister.com, Inc. v. Verio Inc., 356 F. 3d 393 (2004).
[38]Nappinai N.S., Technology Laws Decoded 454 (LexisNexis. 2017).
[39] Benita Ezeigbo, “ E-contracts, Essentials, Variety and legal Issues” (Jun, 01,2020 09.09 PM) https://www.grin.com/ document /427203.
[40] E-Contract: It’s A Lot More Than The ‘I Agree Button, (May 29, 2020 11.55 PM) lawcorner.in/e-contract-its-a-lot-more-than-the-i-agree-button/
[41]In Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc. 487 F. Supp.2nd 593.
[42]Hotmail Corp v. Van $ Money Pie Inc.no C98-20064, 1998 WL 388389 (N.D. Ca., 20th April, 1998).
[43]Supra note 30 at 72
[44]I. Lan Systems, Inc v. Netscout Service Level Corpn. 183 F Supp 2d 328 Civ. Act, No. 00-11489-WGY, 2002 US Dist. Lexis209 d. Mass, 2nd January, (2002).
[45]In Hubbert v. Dell Corp. 835 N. E. 2d 113 Ill. App. Cr. (2005).
[46]However, in Specht v. Netscape, 306 F 3d 17 (2002).
[47]In PDC Laboratories, Inc. v. Hach Co., CD Ill Aug. 25, 2009, (2009) US Dist. Lexis 753778
[48]Supra note 38 at 73
[49] Hines v. Overstock.com, Inc., 668 F Supp 2d 362 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).
[50]Supra note 38 at 73 Hines v. Overstock.com, Inc., 668 F Supp 2d 362 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).
[51] E-contracts and its validity, (May 7, 2020 11.00 PM) https://www.indialawoffices.com/legal-articles/e-contracts-and-validity-india.
[52] Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306F. 3d 17 (2002)
[53]Supra note 38 at 75
[54] Section 11 Information Technology Act, 2000, An electronic record shall be attributed to the originator, –
- If it was sent by the originator himself;
- By a person who had the authority. 19 acts on behalf of the originator in respect of that electronic record; or
- By an information system programmed by or on behalf of the originator to operate automatically.
[55] Section 3, Contract Act 1872, “Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals,” The communication of proposals the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking by which he intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it.
[56]Nappinai N.S., Technology Laws Decoded. 467 (LexisNexis 2017).
[57]Quoted in Ibid, p. 467, Nguyen v. Barnes and Noble Inc., 763 D.3d 1171, the US Court of Appeals, Arizona, C.C.
No 8:12-cv-00812-JST-RNB, (2014); Resister.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356F. 3d 393; 403 (2d Cir. 2004).
[58]Ibid. at 467.
[59]Section 4, Indian Contract Act, 1872.‘The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. The communication of an acceptance is complete, — as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. The communication of a revocation is complete, — as against the person who makes it, when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it; as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge’.
[60]Bhansali S.R., Commentary on the Information Technology Act, ‘An Exhaustive Section-wise Commentary on the Information Technology Act, 2000 along with Rules, Regulations, Orders Guidelines, Notifications, Model Law on E-Commerce, State Laws and Preforms.’ 86 (3rd Edition 2015).
