Uniform Electronic Commerce Act - Admission/Application Essay Example

1. Q: Is there any case law that constitutes the “inferred consent”? If yes, please describe it. If no, what is the “inferred consent” constituted by?

A: No, there is no case law that could constitute the “inferred consent”. It is constituted by such factors as the operation of a Web site to conduct businesses or the exchange of a business card containing an email address. This may be regarded as a person’s agreement to accept information in electronic form.

2. Q: How can an offer or an acceptance of an offer be expressed, under the provisions of the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act?

A: Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an offer or an acceptance of an offer may be expressed by means of an electronic document or by an action in a specific electronic form, such as clicking or touching a special icon.

3. Q: Can the offer of certain services or goods made over the Internet websites be regarded as a true offer or just an invitation to treat? Why?

A: The United Nations Commission on International Trade Laws draft convention on e-contracting specifies in article 12 that an offer of certain services or goods made over the Internet web sites is to be regarded as an invitation for the public to make an offer regarding those services or goods. This rule applies in all cases except the case when the offeror specifically indicates his intention to be bound. There is an analogy between the offers made via the internet websites and the offers made via traditional media, which also refer to the whole public.

4. Q: What is the Corinthian scenario and why is it important for electronic commerce?

A: The Corinthian scenario is based on the case of Corinthian Pharmaceutical Systems Inc. v. Lederle Laboratories from Indiana which happened in 1989 in the United States District Court. It was about an order that was placed by the plaintiff – Corinthian Pharmaceutical Systems Inc. over Defendant’s telephone computerized ordering system regarding 1000 vials of vaccine. Lederle raised the price of the vaccine and Corinthian brought the action into the Court. The Court concluded that the price lists that were distributed by Lederle were invitations to the customers for them to make offers to the distributor. So in the case of Corinthian, when he called and made an order to Lederle, he was simply making an offer to him. This case is important due to the fact that it set the precedent that online price lists constitute invitations to treat, so the Corinthian case is replicated day by day online.

5. Q: What is the four-part test that must be satisfied in order to conclude that a user assents to a browse-wrap agreement?

A: According to a project of the American Bar Association Joint Working Group on Electronic Contracting Practices it was concluded that a four-part test must be satisfied in order to be sure that a user agreed to a browse-wrap agreement. The test is formed of the following: 1. the user is given adequate notice of the existence of the proposed terms; 2. the user is given a meaningful opportunity to review the terms; 3. the user is adequately informed that taking a specific action, like using the Web site indicates his assent to the terms and 4. the user takes such action.

6. Q: What is an electronic signature?

A: Section 1 of the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act defines the electronic signature as the information in electronic form that a person has created or adopted in order to sign a document and that is in, attached to, or associated with the document.