Article Summary
Electronic devices have had an extensive effect on influencing the drafting of contracts by companies. Electronic contract drafting has gone a long way to encourage unusual electronic contracts, which are wired to pressure customers to make choices based on company actions (Kim, 2014). The article looks at modern electronic duress to examine the use of electronic contracts to exploit customers. The article is divided into three parts; part one addresses the aberrancy of electronic contracts and the developing law, which is different from tradition. The second part provides insight into the traditional and conceptual duress doctrine. The last part describes the defense of situational duress and the response to electronic contracts. Situational duress explains how electronic contracts differ from traditional ones (Kim, 2014). Understanding the basis of the traditional and situational duress doctrine is therefore essential in addition to its defense in remedying the resultant problems from electronic contracts.
- Electronic contracts are also called browse wraps, clickwraps, and tape wraps. Different from paper-based contracts, which are negotiated, electronic contracts are based on a take-it-or-leave-it foundation, which is one-sided. Electronic contracts are legal upon the court’s assertion of the manifestation of agreement and a reasonable consumer notice which is acknowledged by clicking on the icon “I accept” (Kim, 2014). In traditional contracts, the clauses printed on the back side of the document were not binding unless they captured the person’s attention.
- The courts typically find the notice that a person is clicking on the “I Accept” icon binds them to the terms and conditions of the contracts and, hereafter, the transaction happening. The contract prevails if the sign is invisible but provided as a hyperlink near the agreeing icon or checked in the scrollable box. If it were not necessary for the consumer to click the accept icon, the court would find notice if the customer received a desist or ceases letter or if the agreement terms were visible without scrolling. The case of desist and cease letter will indicate that the notice is operative at the period of receiving the actual notice and not the initial interaction time.
- Courts accommodated past changes by inspecting a superficial assent manifestation of the documents, which must be eligible and satisfactorily call for the party ratifying it. The courts need to separate what digital form has on customers’ behavior and perception concerning electronic contracts by declaring that paper contracts are the same as electronic contracts (Kim, 2014). The perception is based on comparing clicking the hyperlink that takes a consumer to the next page, which is the same as turning a page. Based on the courts, the individuals who click the agreeing button without going through the terms are the same as those who turn to the last page without reading and signing it.
- The highlighted characteristics of electronic contracts define their applications. The weightlessness and intangibility of electronic contracts are vital in persuading the awareness of consumers (Kim, 2014). The document size, paper quality, and corresponding representations with the weight of the message contained within. Electronic contracts lose this significance. Equally, electronic and physical contracts have a single limitation concerning their physical space because both have carefully selected words. Titles and eye-catching phrases are emphasized and capitalized, and bolded cases are also stressed.
- Companies habitually take advantage of the electronic contract flexibility to educate the aborted transaction scenarios. The idea is regularly made strategically simple for finding and reading where the consumer will only be mindful of the terms once ratifying up or after filling in the payment option (Kim, 2014). Because of these features, electronic contracts are considered beneficial in ensuring that the data can be easily duplicated, manipulated, and modified, and also, they are cost-effective.
- Electronic contracts bring about several threats. The contracts cause improper and wrongful amounts of illegal actions (Kim, 2014). The courts frequently emphasize the influence the act may have on the client’s manifestation of acceptance. A criminal threat poses an irrational alternative to a weaker party during negotiation. Economic coercion is most likely to happen if the act is done under wrongful circumstances, even if there is a legal right to make the threatened act.
- According to the courts, a rolling contract is an enforceable contracting technique if the customer can reject the terms. The consumer refuses to accept a rolling contract by packing and returning the merchandise. The rolling contract does not relate to electronic contracts because there is no alternative (Kim, 2014). The situational duress application is restricted by the significance of having negotiating parties bargain in their interest. The idea is supported by courts declining duress claims that they entered into bargaining with a profit motive but were subject to hard bargaining.
Special Insights
According to the article, electronic contracts pose a one-sided term to customers, and the terms are not subject to review by the companies once the consumer clicks. The courts acknowledge this contract as an abiding contract and cannot be disputed. A question arises on what laws are there to protect consumers against electronic contracts. In most cases, the consumers agree to terms and conditions, which they may need help understanding since the terms may be technical. The idea raises a question about the language that the company uses. Should regulations on the terms make companies more straightforward for consumers? Compared to physical contracts, when ascending to electronic contracts, the consumer might not be able to review or get a copy of the terms. The situation raises the question of whether companies should make the terms available for review. These three questions are not addressed in the article. Therefore, electronic contracts are a way for companies to take advantage of consumers and get them to accept terms that are not favorable to them.
Reference
Kim, N. (2014). Situational Duress and the Aberrance of Electronic Contracts.Chicago-Kent Law Review, 89(1), 265. Web.