E-Contracts and E-Signatures Essay Example for Free

E-Contracts and E-Signatures EssayI. Forming Contracts OnlineDisputes arising from contracts entered into online concern the foothold and assent to those terms.A. Online OffersTerms should be conspicuous and clearly spelled out. On a Web site, this can be done with a link to a separate page that contains the details. The text lists subjects that might be covered, including remedies, dispute settlement, payment, taxes, refund and stop policies, disclaimers, and privacy policies. An online offer should also include a mechanism by which an offeree can affirmatively indicate assent (such as an I associate box to crack on). 1. Click-On AgreementsA click-on agreement occurs when a buyer, completing a transaction on a computer, is required to indicate his or her assent to be bound by the terms of an offer by clicking on a button that says, for example, I agree. The terms may appear on a Web site with which a buyer is obtaining goods or services, or they may appear on a computer scr een when software is loaded.2. Shrink-wrap AgreementsA shrink-wrap agreement is an agreement whose terms are expressed inside a box in which computer hardware or software is packaged. In most cases, the agreement is non mingled with a seller and a buyer, but between a manufacturer and the substance abuser of the product. The terms generally concern warranties, remedies, and other issues associated with the use of the product. Courts often employ shrink-wrap agreements, reasoning that the seller proposed an offer that the buyer accepted after an opportunity to read the terms. Also, it is more practical to enclose the full terms of a sale in a box. If a court finds that the buyer learned of the shrink-wrap terms after the parties entered into a contract, the court might conclude that those terms were proposals for additional terms, which were not part of the contract unless the buyer expressly agreed to them.3. Browse-Wrap TermsBrowse-wrap terms, which can also occur in an onlin e transaction, do not require a user to assent to the terms before going ahead with the deal. Offerors of these terms generally assert that they are binding without the users active consent. Critics argue that a user should at least be required to navigate past the terms before they should be considered binding.II. E-SignaturesThe text discusses how e-signatures are created and verified, and their legal tack.A. E-Signature TechnologiesThe text discusses cardinal common methods for creating e-signatures.B. State Laws Governing E-SignaturesMost states have laws governing body e-signatures, although the laws are not uniform. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), issued in 1999 and adopted by most states, was an attempt by the National convocation of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) to create more uniformity.C. Federal Law on E-Signatures and E-DocumentsIn 2000, telling enacted the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN Act) to provi de that no contract, record, or signature may be denied legal effect wholly because it is in an electronic form. Some documents are excluded, most notably documents governed by Articles 3, 4, and 9 of the UCC.III. Partnering AgreementsThrough a partnering agreement, a seller and a buyer agree in advance on the terms to apply in all transactions subsequently conducted electronically. These terms may include access and identification codes. A partnering agreement, like any contract, can pr correctt later disputes. IV. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act The UETA, which is a draft of legislation suggested to the states by the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and the American Law Institute (ALI), removes barriers to e-commerce by giving the same legal effect to electronic records and signatures as to paper documents and signatures.A. The Scope and pertinency of the UETAThe UETA applies only to e-records and e-signatures relating to a transaction (an interaction between two or more people relating to business, commercial or governmental activities). The UETA does not apply to laws governing wills or testamentary trusts, the UCC (except Articles 2 and 2A), the UCITA, and other laws excluded by the states. B. The Federal E-SIGN Act and the UETAIf a state enacts the UETA without modification, the E-SIGN Act does not preempt it. The E-SIGN Act does preempt special versions of the UETA to the extent that they are in consistent with the E-SIGN Act. Under the E-SIGN Act, states may enact alternative procedures or requirements for the use or acceptance of e-records or e-signatures if (1) those procedures or requirements are consistent with the E-SIGN Act, (2) the states procedures do not give greater legal effect to any specific type of technology, and (3) if the state adopts the alternative after the economy of the E-SIGN Act, the state law must refer to the E-SIGN Act.C. Highlights of the UETAState versions may vary.1. The Parti es Must Agree to Conduct Transaction Electronically This agreement may be implied by the circumstances and the parties conduct (for example, giving out a business card with an e-mail address on it). Consent may also be withdrawn.2. Parties drive out Opt OutParties can waive or vary any or all of the UETA, but the UETA applies in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. 3. Attribution The effect of an e-record is determined from its context and circumstances. A persons separate is not necessary to give effect to an e-record, but if, for example, a person types her or his name at the bottom of an e-mail purchase order, that typing qualifies as a signature and is attributed to the person. Any relevant evidence can prove that an e-record or e-signature is, or is not, the act of the person. If issues arise relating to agency, authority, forgery, or contract formation, state laws other than the UETA apply.4. NotarizationA document can be notarized by a notarys e-signature.5. The te rmination of ErrorsIf the parties agree to a security procedure and one party does not detect an error because it did not follow the procedure, the conforming party can avoid the effect of the error UETA 10. If the parties do not agree on a security procedure, other state laws determine the effect of the mistake. To avoid the effect of an error, a party must (1) promptly notify the other of the error and of his or her intent not to be bound by it and (2) take reasonable stairs to return any benefit or consideration received. If restitution cannot be made, the transaction may be unavoidable.6. TimingAn e-record is sent when it is properly directed from the senders place of business to the intended receiving system in a form readable by the recipients computer at the recipients place of business that has the closest relation to the transaction (or either partys residence, if there is no place of business). Once an e-record leaves the senders control or comes under the recipients con trol, it is sent. An e-record is received when it enters the recipients processing system in a readable formeven if no person is aware of its receipt.