چکیده:
The internet has transformed the manner of conducting commercial transactions and has created regulatory gaps. These regulatory gaps may impact the effective development of electronic commerce. Attempts are being made to regulate electronic contracts both at the national and international level. The present research analyses these attempts, in particular the Electronic Transaction Legislation of Australia and the proposed new amendments. It also examines the role of international developments in assisting countries in their regulatory attempts. The research highlights the extent to which gaps are being filled and also examines the inadequacies of the Electronic Transactions Legislation of Australia.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Like the Model law on electronic commerce Electronic Transactions Act 1999 provides criteria dealing with writing requirements, signatures, time of receipt, time of dispatch of messages an d place of busin ess.
However, neither the current Electronic Transactions Act 1999 nor the prosed amendments deal with issues associated with capacity of contracts and privity of contracts.
It should be noted therefore that in an electronic contract where the parties are not dealing with one another face-to-face, it may be difficult to determine the capacity of the parties as electronic transactions can be easily conducted anonymously and remotely (Martin and Jaques, 2001).
It is clear from the foregoing that electronic contracts expose transacting parties to more risks in an online scenario.
This can lead to concerns in relation to electronic contracts especially because businesses can easily mislead and deceive customer with regar ds to electron ic con tracts as seen in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v A ll phones Re ta il Pt y Lt d (2 00 9) , A ustral ia n Communication and Media Authority v Mobiligated Ltd a company Incorporated in Hong Kong and Others (2009), Australian Competition and Consumer v Clarion Marketing Pty Ltd (2009), ACCC v Jetplace Pty Ltd (2010), Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v Boost Tel Pty Ltd (2010).
It can be seen that while traditional contract law provides principles in relation to privacy of contract, it does not adequately deal with the issue of privacy of contract from the perspective of remote transactions, which has broader implications.
The major finding of the study was that the both traditional contract law principles and the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 cannot adequately deal with the issue of capacity and privity of contracts.