I.Introduction
Commerce carried out through the internet has become a way of life among most members of the civil society. It offers a new means of purchasing and gives companies a wider scope with reference to reaching their respective target markets. However, with the promise of interactivity and connectivity, the world of e-commerce tends to intimate higher risks for the parties involved. Aside from the reliance to trust and confidence, the novelty of the process also invokes certain absences in legal protection as mandatory, prohibitory and even permissive legislation tend to vary from one regime to another. States of higher economies have already taken steps to establish a stable legal framework that shall cover their respective jurisdictions. However, there are states that have yet to create a sensible set of rules that shall govern over these online transactions. This is the case of Cybernesia, a diminutive oceanic island state. The following discussions shall be dedicated entirely in giving material information on the possible course on which Cybernesia could undertake. In the same regard, discussions pertaining to certain jurisdictions and models of law with reference to other states and countries shall be provided in order to present the available forms of legislation that Cybernesia could promulgate. Other than the texts of these mentioned legislations, the paper shall also take into account scholarly articles that dealt with the issue of e-commerce with regards to the electronic contracts and authentication of electronic and digital signatures.
II.E-Commerce
Ecommerce is broadly defined by Todd as “any transaction involving goods or services where digital electronic communication performs an essential function.”[1] The introduction of e-commerce in the realm of trade provides for a new means of business-to-business and business-to-consumer trading.[2] To date, the pioneers and the forerunners of this trading process have turned themselves into multimillion dollar firms. Companies like Amazon.com, Dell Computers, and Travelocity.com are among the highest earning companies that engage in e-commerce.[3] However, the subject of e-commerce is not limited to the scope of the market or the potential of immense profit. Like any other component of society, given that those that engage in these acts possess rights recognised by law, the acts connected to these processes are covered by the legal principles.
This part of the paper shall highlight the determining element that sets e-commerce apart from traditional trading practices. To be more specific, the issue of security and the risk of deception are almost always at a heightened level. The work of pinpointed the root cause of this risk.[4] Basically, in processes that involves online transaction, identity and identification raises inherent problems. Traditionally, these issues of identity and the need for identification are addressed by merely asking for a valid proof of identification. Passports and identification cards may suffice in instances of face-to-face transactions, but this is not the case in e-commerce. With the internet as its medium, the users on the other end of the line have limited capacity on verifying the identity of the other individual. Though developments have been made attempting to address this conundrum, there is still some significant level of risk present in the process. Discussions pertaining to these developments shall be given in the succeeding parts.
A.Online ContractsThe effects of the internet have been seen in the trading world, particularly in both B2B and B2C transactions. The effect of the internet is seen primarily on the use of Universal Protocols, TCP/IP, to transfer messages and communicate. This takes away the prerequisite of prior agreement between those who are party to the transaction.[5] However, it must be emphasised that the traditional necessity of agreement is still present. This is reinforced by the study of Bouchoux where she mentioned that a click through signature is as good as a written signature.[6] In the same sense, it is also imperative for companies who use the web for transactions to guarantee that the online contracts that they offer are as identical as possible to those which they use for the traditional paper copies of contracts.
In some instances, these online contracts works hand-in-hand with the existing copyright laws in order to extend the protections available for companies engaging in e-commerce.[7] This is further strengthened by a judgement in a US court claiming that online contracts of adhesion are indeed enforceable.[8] However, in order for an actual contract to be recognised and enforced, it must initially be formed. This is done by providing the traditional principles of common law pertaining to the elements of a valid contract. These elements include an offer, an acceptance, intent to create legal relations, and consideration. Upon realising these elements, legal obligations are concurrently formed with the existence of a binding contract. In the same manner, following such a process, the determination of the enforceable rights of the parties involved is carried out. Nonetheless, with the description of these novel types of contracts, there are inherent differences with reference to the extent to which security is needed for both parties. The following discussions shall address the matter.
B.The Need for SecurityIn order for Cybernesia to fully recognise the course of action on which its government intends to undertake, the pertinent authorities should realise the need to ensure security and protect the private interests of both consumers and sellers who intend to engage in e-commerce in the country. The state must realise that the open nature of the internet and its applications. In the study of Elifoglu, he mentioned that both consumers and sellers typically encounter theft, destruction, interception, and alteration of (but not limited to) financial data.[9] Such sensitive data includes “credit card numbers and personal data,” which most individuals are not inclined to divulge.[10] These are transactions that require greater security as consumers tend to veer away from online transactions that uses these types of information as a means of payment. This is basically triggered by the inherent fear of consumers for the sensitive data appended to credit cards.[11] This may well be attributed to the developments and current trends in e-commerce. To date, the identity of the respective buyers and sellers has become less verifiable.[12] There are instances where the buyers are completely oblivious of the actual identity of the sellers, and vice versa. There are even reports where these data are hacked and the credits extracted from specific accounts leaving hundreds of victims and the hacker over a hundreds of dollars richer.[13] In order to address these issues, both private and public entities have taken steps to ensure the validity of the identification of the parties involved. This spawned electronic signatures and encryption processes.
1.Electronic SignaturesTraditionally, signatures are indispensable components in a transaction. This is basically essential in instances where the parties involved require proper documentation and verifiable proof that an actual transaction.[14] In instances where internet communication is concerned, the use of electronic signatures is necessary. The surge in the area of e-commerce tends to highlight the concurrent heave towards the use of electronic signatures. In this regard, electronic signatures have been included in several regimes as a part of their legal framework. For instance, Todd mentioned that the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures 2001[15] defines an electronic signature as “data in electronic form in, affixed to or logically associated with, a data message, which may be used to identify the signatory in relation to the data message and to indicate the signatory’s approval of the information contained in the data message.” This shows how the model presents a functional approach to the definition of electronic signatures. However, there are certain regimes that point to a slightly different perspective. For instance, regimes in the US, Australia, and UK leave the prudence of the judicial branch to determine whether the requirements provided by the functional definition of the UNCITRAL model law are satisfied in a case-to-case basis.
2.Encryption (Digital Signatures)
Encryption emerged as the trend towards e-commerce started to rise. In its simplest sense, encryption is used to verify the identity of a particular person and hide certain sensitive contents of their personal data.[16] Normally, encryption is seen primarily in the form of passwords.[17] Encryption algorithm is infused with the storage of passwords in order to take away the possibility of being accessed by no other than the actual user. Other forms of encryption is seen in B2C transactions where credit cards are used as a form of payment.[18] For major credit card companies like MasterCard and Visa, they use protocols like Secure Socket Layers, Transport Layer Security, and Secure Electronic Transaction.
Early studies on encryption and digital signatures tend to use it with “electronic signatures” interchangeably. Though they are both tools in providing security in the process, there are certain differences between the said terms. For instance, digital signatures use a public key infrastructure (PKI) as its base.[19] Specifically, the user of digital signatures is given two types of keys, a public and a private one. The former points to those which are openly obtainable to verify the digital signature, the latter indicate a key that is not shared to which the signer uses solely to sign documents.
The description above shows that digital signatures are based on cryptographic processes and significantly ensures the authenticity of the signature as compared to its electronic counterpart. Furthermore, the integrity of the data is also ensured as the signature could not be reproduced, fiddled with, and changed. This not only ensures the safety of the private interest of the consumers as it similarly eliminates the possibility of repudiation of the documents ensuring that the sellers shall have an authentic proof of sale.
III.Validity of Electronic SignaturesAs seen in the earlier parts of this discussion, the issues of electronic signatures increase the need for the guidance of legal principles. The following discussions shall present several judicial interpretations claming the validity of electronic signatures.
A.Cloud Corp. v. Hasbro Inc[20]This case presents a model for the liberal interpretation of courts pertaining to the form of the electronic signatures. The fact of the case indicates that the defendant refused to recognise the placement of orders that it gave the petitioner. The communication between the parties was carried out through email. The issue is whether the correspondence done through the e-mail is enough to verify a contract. The courts decided that it was sufficient evidence that the creation of the contract took place and is therefore valid. Basically, the courts held that the sender’s name in the email points to an actual signature that proves that the contract took place. Thus, the courts not only proved that there is a legal binding contract between the parties, but also the possibility of using electronic mail addresses as an actual signature requirement for proving the claim of fraud.
B.Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International [21]
The case also involves the use of emails as a means of verifying one’s electronic signature. In this case, the plaintiff filed for a suit to recover the cash owned under a contract. The main issue of this case is whether an internal company email forwarded to the plaintiff is admissible as evidence to the latter’s claim. The defendant discovered the source of the original email coming from the petitioner directly involved with the transaction between the parties. The court held that the evidence was indeed admissible as the signatures appended in the email messages, particularly seen in the name of the sender, constitute to an adoptive admission.
C.Moore v. Microsoft Corporation[22]Another technology that has been using electronic signatures in principle is “clickwarp” agreements. This case is a good example of parties using these types of agreements. The facts of the case cover the petitioner seeking recourse from the courts pertaining to the User Licence Agreement of Microsoft as he have been subjected to a binding contract. The issue of the case refers as to whether there was a valid contract between the parties in this case.
The courts held that there is an actual binding contract that subsists between the petitioner and the defendant. The decision of the court has been the seminal principle for these types of electronic signatures. Basically, the courts held that with the claimant clicking the “I agree” button in the initial part of the installation process, he establishes the intent to create a legal connection with the company which include the compliance with the disclaimers and waivers listed in the terms appended with the “I agree” button.
IV.Models of LegislationThe following will present the more well-known legislation that deals with the issue of e-commerce. Specifically, the discussions will cover the models in which these laws lean towards. Similarly, these will be used as a basis of further discussions on which model of e-commerce law creation would be fitting on the case of Cybernesia.
A.Utah Digital Signature Act 1995This piece of legislation is said to be the earliest accounts ratifying the authorisation of digital signatures. Specific provision of this Act constitutes the use of public key encryptions. It also provides a working definition on the scheme covering the licensing certification authorities (CAs). The state attempts to protect the interests of the general public engaging in e-commerce through s203 (11) and (16) of the said Act requiring these authorities to obtain a licence from the state. However, the general purpose of the said Act is to provide digital signatures the same legal implications as that of wet signatures.
Cybernesia could adopt certain attributes of the Utah Act, particularly its technology-specific model.[23] This means that the form of the signature has ascendancy over the function of the digital signature. The legislation’s specific description of the form, nonetheless, limits its effectiveness. With the specifics of the form detailed in law, it could either stunt technology or become an obsolete rule real quickly. In the same manner, the said law points out the involvement of the state in the authorisation of CAs. Countries like Cybernesia should realise, in the instance that they apply this law, to keep watch of the possibility of overregulation which again installs further stifling conditions to e-commerce.[24] In any case, there is a distinct possibility that the liberal points in regulation provided by the Utah legislation may well be adopted by Cybernesia.
B.UNCITRAL Model Law on Signatures 2001[25]The main characteristic of this model is its technological neutrality.[26] However, this is merely a part of a myriad of principles on which the model rests on. For instance, the model recognises the dominance of pre-existing legislations. This is implied in Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the law as the function of the signature is held over the form. Specifically, these articles points to instances “where the law requires a signature of a person.” It shows that the requirement and necessity of a particular signature is impervious to whether it is wet or digital.
Other principles seen in the model law is the functional uniformity of electronic and digital signature to its handwritten counterpart.[27] The said principle is provided in Article 3 as it states the compliance of the signature requirements. Moreover, the phrase “including any relevant agreement” points to the presence of the principle of freedom of contract.[28] Other parts of the law including Article 5 and Article 12.5 manifest the said legal principle. To some extent, this shows that the said model of law is set to establish an advisory and supplementary personality and not a mandatory one.
Overall, it presents itself as a piece of legislation that shows promise for standardisation of the laws in e-signatures. Basically, it promotes technological development, non-discrimination and international recognition. It shows immense good faith for the parties involved in the process. This is referred to and specifically within the text of the model law itself.[29]
C.The European Union Directive on a Community Framework for Electronic Signatures 1999The Signature Directive, was made to “harmonized and appropriate legal framework for the use of electronic signatures” [30] in order to set a standardised set of legal provisions and procedures in governing the said technologies. The EU has defined electronic signatures as a “data in electronic form which are attached to or logically associated with other electronic data and which serves as a method of authentication.” [31] Aside from this basic definition, the directive also pointed out the description of an advanced electronic signature. An electronic signature is considered advanced if it is (a) exclusively linked to the signatory; (b) able of recognizing and identify the signatory; (c) constructed with ways on which the signatory can monitor under his/her control; (d) it is connected to the data to which it refers in such a way that any ensuing changes of the said data shall be easily known. [32]
Looking at the definition and discussions provided above regarding the signature directive, it appears that it acquired a two-tiered approach in specifying the legal effects of an electronic signature. [33] The first level compels the member states of the EU to guarantee that an electronic signature is not declined of any legal usefulness and admissibility in the legal proceedings in courts, especially if they are treated as a vital piece of evidence. It claims that the member states should make sure of its acceptability as a part of legal proceedings is not declined because of its electronic form; not a based on a certificate approved by a qualified or licensed certification authorities; or if it is not made by a secure device. The second level of legal validation specified in the Directive implies that qualified technologies such as that of electronic and digital signatures be deemed equal with their handwritten counterparts. This is seen in Electronic Signatures Directive, article 5 claiming that like handwritten signatures, electronic signatures should also have legal admissibility in such proceedings.
D.Electronic Communications Act 2000 (UK)The United Kingdom enacted this Act to comply with the requirements of the EU Directive on e-signatures. Seen in s7 is a very comprehensive take on the definition of electronic signatures. The said section states that electronic signatures are “(a) is incorporated into or otherwise logically associated with any electronic communication or electronic data; and (b) purports to be so incorporated or associated for the purpose of being used in establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.” [34] Added to the list is the requirement of the registration of cryptography support services. This set of circumstances gives rise to the voluntary accreditation of these cryptography support services. This brings in UK’s adoption of an article of the EU directive that encourages voluntary accreditation.
To a certain extent, it appears to be neural like that provided by UNCITRAL model. This brings about a rather grave issue as the EU specifically noted the need to comply with the terms of the 1999 Directive.[35] More specifically, the EU Directive intimated the need to establish a legal framework that will follow the two-tier approach. On the whole, this Act neglects certain areas of the Directive regardless of the fact that the latter is considerably wide-ranging. An outcome of this issue is that there are certain issues on the liability of the parties as well as the protection of certain rights that goes against the principles of the Directive.
E.Electronic Signatures Regulation 2002 (UK)The regulation is a part of the intended adoption of the EU directive on electronic signatures. It complements the pre-existing Electronic Communications Act of 2000. Looking at it contents, the Electronic Signatures Regulation 2002 is considerably limited with reference to its scope.[36] The main elements of this piece of legislation include the supervision and legal responsibilities of certification service providers. It also covers certain elements of data protection that were not addressed in the ratification of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.
In these Regulations, the certification service providers’ activities are now under the critical eye of the Secretary of State. This also establishes a register intimating the certification service providers who issues qualified certificates to those in the whole of UK. The regulations also intimated the liabilities of these types of providers as per the qualified certificates that they issue. Specifically, the law dictates that the certification service providers are now liable to anyone who they have acquired their services with reference to the accurateness of the information infused in the said certificates at the period where they issued it. Moreover, the Regulation also points to the protection of the personal data of the data subject. For instance, the e-mail address of the client should only be acquired directly for the sole intention of issuing the certificate. In indirect means, the client should give their explicit consent to the certification service providers.
V.Proposals for CybernesiaIn the area of e-commerce regime, an age-old conundrum for states rests on whether the legal framework promulgated would cover a neural stance with reference to technology or attempt to follow a path towards regulation. The discussions above have indicated electronic signatures are primarily for the authentication of the electronic documents. This shows that in the early stages of e-commerce, the encouragement and support towards digital and electronic signatures were the focus of these legal initiatives. This is seen in the case of Utah in its early electronic signature initiatives. These concepts tend to cover high security to ensure authentication of identity, which unfortunately limits the possibility of technological innovation in states that espouse these types of laws. In hindsight, the conundrum still lingers as proponents of laws that favour digital and electronic signatures see regulation as a means of perverse government intervention. As seen in the discussions on the legislations above, there are several approaches in creating laws on the electronic signature regime of various states.
For instance, the United Nations proposed a two-tier approach on which the UNCITRAL model is founded. There is also the functionalist approach where, though they embrace the principles posed by the UNCITRAL Model law, regards other forms of electronic signature as a “functional” counterpart of digital and the handwritten (wet) signatures. This reflects a favourable perspective towards technology. And lastly, there is the minimalist approach as seen in the UK laws discussed above. In this approach the form is given more importance as opposed to the function of the signature to unfold the intention of the individual.
A.Approaches ProposedThe state’s main objective is to attract as much investments in the e-businesses in the land without compromising the security of the consumers. Specifically, the Cybernesia seeks to establish an appealing market for investors and consequently ensure and sustain consumer confidence. Given the case of Cybernesia, it appears that the state have to take on the best practices that comes from the models discussed above. The following discussions shall establish certain elements of the models of regulation for electronic signatures mentioned in the previous part of this study.
1.Obligations and LiabilitiesIn order to keep with the international standards of obligations and liabilities of the parties involved, it is recommended for Cybernesia to adopt the terms provided by the UNCITRAL Model Law.[37] In Articles 8, 9, and 11, the said regime provides for the principles of both the certification service providers and the recipients of the data message containing an electronic signature, with particular reference to electronic signatures based on public key infrastructures.[38] In principle, the signatories are afforded the prudence to employ reasonable care to steer clear of any illicit use of its signature creation data. As provided by the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law, the type of technology is considerably immaterial. In the same manner, it is also implied in the model law that the signatory should take similarly reasonable attempts to inform any of the parties that will depend on the electronic signatures whether they suspect or became known to them that they have lost control over the signature and the data has been compromised. This obligation and liability is pointed out in Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law as the signatory bears the brunt of the implications in instances where failure to comply with the obligations takes place. In the same manner, the certification service providers are also given an obligation to give the signatories a means of informing the parties involved of the possibility of the data being compromised.
Other obligations of the certification service providers are mentioned in Article 9 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.[39] It commands countries like Cybernesia to ensure that certification service providers act in conformity with the provided policies applicable in the land. In the same manner, ensuring the veracity of the statement in the issued certificate is included in the process as well as ascertaining the data attached therewith including the identification of the signatory, limits of the data, limitations on their liabilities, notification services in instances where the data may have been, or suspected to have been compromised. Basically, the both the signatory and the certification service providers of electronic signatures have to deal with these liabilities and obligations provided by the state. In this regard, the need for security and neutrality in terms of technology are addressed.
2.Cross-Border ElementsAnother area on which Cybernesia should look into is the possibility of international transactions using electronic signatures. In this regard, it would be wise to impose some level of regulation in the area of cross-border transactions. This once more points to the need to impose the UNCITRAL Model Law as it offers provisions that leans towards the principles of reciprocity and support from the local state. As seen in Article 12 of the said regime, in order to make the investors comfortable with the regulatory elements of Cybernesia, it has to impose a standard rule that attempts to provide universal recognition of the legitimacy and legality of the electronic signatures used as well as of the certificates provided particularly when the electronic signatures are based on the technology of public key infrastructure.[40]
In doing so, international firms may rest on the fact that the use of electronic signatures in dealing with an oceanic state like Cybernesia would be valid. This is because upon imposing the said principle provided by the UNCITRAL Model Law, the electronic signatures that they employ will not be influenced by any types of design, issue, or documentation that took place external of the territories of the enacting jurisdiction. In any case, the most important element in this context is that the electronic signatures should comply with the terms provided by the UNICITRAL Model law such that it complements the universal standards which the said regime employs.
3.Free Circulation of ServicesAs seen in the earlier proposed actions, Cybernesia will have to impose the two-tier approach in the process. However, it should be emphasised that certain adjustments should be provided in order to keep in line with the desire of the state to protect its consumers. In implementing the two-tier approach, the development and accommodation of future technologies is ensured along with the provisions of bestowing the general consumers with certainty and freedom of choosing the service provider that they desire.
To begin with, e-signatures should adhere to principles of reliability thus intimating that specific conditions for reliability shall be required.[41] The state should also adhere to the principle of functional equivalence indicating that the function of the signature prevails over any consideration of its form. At this point, it should be apparent that it is proposed that the stand of Cybernesia towards e-commerce shall be considerably liberal. Basically, this proposal uses the term liberal in the context of flexibility in both regulation and free circulation of services. Thus, triggered by the impetus of Article 3 of the EU Directive, collaboration between the state of Cybernesia as well as the private e-commerce entities that seek to operate in the state is be encouraged. This means that the principles of autonomy[42] and protection of the consumers[43] (particularly in the area of data protection) is expected in order for e-commerce to flourish in Cybernesia.
VI.ConclusionLaws pertaining to information technology are starting to become one of the areas of the legal field that possess issues that are highly debated. This may be possibly caused by the apparent ubiquity of technology and the fact that it has ingrained itself in society that conflicts that arise from it require the help of the law. This is seen in this paper, the concepts of contracts and its infusion with the current trends of wireless technology has paved the way to a new area of law.
The paper established the reality that for a state to provide opportunity for e-commerce to succeed, awareness of the existing approaches in creating the legal framework for such an industry is vital. The paper presented several models as seen in the existing legislations promulgated in various nations. In the case of Cybernesia, the budding e-commerce in the oceanic state has to create a legislation to regulate and at the same time allow the industry to flourish. The proposed courses of action pointed to the acquisition of the best practices that fit the specific nuances of the state. Thus, a combination of both technology-neutral and regulation has been proposed for Cybernesia to implement.
On the whole, the field of e-commerce delves in a fast-paced environment. This indicates that the state will have to guarantee that it possess a stable legal framework to secure the parties involved. In the same manner, the discussions above pointed to the need of flexibility and autonomy in the industry. This spells that the demand for private entities and legitimate authorities of the state to work together and make the budding e-commerce industry in Cybernesia top calibre and capable of competing with the rest of the world.
VII.Bibliography
Acts and Laws
UK
Electronic Communications Act 2000 (chapter 7)
Electronic Signatures Regulation 2002. Available at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20020318.htm [accessed 11 June 2008]
US
ESIGN (Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce Act)
European Union
EU Directive for Electronic Signatures (1999/93/EC) Available in: http://www.jus.unitn.it/USERS/PASCUZZI/privcomp98-99/topics/6/firma/propostadirettivaUE.htm [Accessed 10 June 2008]
UN
UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures (2001) Available in: http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/electcom/ml-elecsig-e.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2008]
Caselaws
Cloud Corp. v. Hasbro Inc. 314 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002)
Moore v. Microsoft Corporation 741 N.Y.S.2d 91 (April 5, 2002)
Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International LLC, 285 F.3d 808; 2002 WL 496943 (9th Cir. 2002)
Books
Brazell, L. (2004) Electronics Signature Law and Regulation. Sweet & Maxwell. p164.
Bouchoux, D. (2001) "Protecting Your Company's Intellectual Property: A Practical Guide to Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents and Trade Secrets." New York: AMACOM. p150.
Jackson, P., Harris, L. and Eckersley, P. (2003) E-Business Fundamentals: Managing Organisations in the Electronic Age. New York: Routledge. P253
Ravi, K, & Andrew, W, Electronic Commerce, A Manager’s Guide, 1997, Addison-Wesley, p.133
Reed, C. (2004) Internet Law. Cambridge University Press. p141
Simons, A. and Simons, B. (2001) E-commerce Law. Palladin Law Publishing. p 33
Simons, A. and Simons, B. (2001) E-commerce Law. Palladin Law Publishing. p 33
Todd, P. (2005) E-Commerce Law. Cavendish Publishing Limited. p10
Journals and Periodicals
Eilifoglu, I. (2002) "Navigating the "Information Super Highway": How Accountants Can Help Clients Assess and Control the Risks of Internet-Based E-Commerce." Review of Business. 23(1), 67- 81
Holleyman, R. (2000) "Updating Contract Law for the Digital Age." USA Today. 128(2658), 52-60.
Jensen, C. (2003) "The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Copyright, Digital Technology, and Social Norms." Stanford Law Review. 56(2), 531-560.
Peeples, D. (2002) "Instilling Consumer Confidence in E-Commerce." SAM Advanced Management Journal. 26-32
Rosas, R. (2003) "Comparative Study of the Formation of Electronic Contracts in American Law with References to International and Mexican Law." Houston Journal of International Law. 26(1), 63-125.
Spindler, G. and Borner, F. (2002) E-Commerce Law in Europe and USA. Springer. p260
Web Articles
Anup K. Gosh, “Securing E-Commerce: A Systematic Approach”, Available at http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/9704-04.htm, [accessed 12 June, 2008]
Public Key Encryption and Public Key Infrastructure- Explained, Available at http://www.safe-mail.net/support/eng/help/protectsecure/pki.html#top, [accessed 13 June, 2008]
[1] Todd, P. (2005) E-Commerce Law. Cavendish Publishing Limited. p3
[2] Holleyman, R. (2000) "Updating Contract Law for the Digital Age." USA Today. 128(2658), 52-60.
[3] Holleyman 2000, 53
[4] Reed, C. (2004) Internet Law. Cambridge University Press. p141
[5] Todd, P. (2005) E-Commerce Law. Cavendish Publishing Limited. p10
[6] Bouchoux, D. (2001) "Protecting Your Company's Intellectual Property: A Practical Guide to Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents and Trade Secrets." New York: AMACOM. p150.
[7] Jensen, C. (2003) "The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Copyright, Digital Technology, and Social Norms." Stanford Law Review. 56(2), 531-560.
[8] Jensen p531
[9] Eilifoglu, I. (2002) "Navigating the "Information Super Highway": How Accountants Can Help Clients Assess and Control the Risks of Internet-Based E-Commerce." Review of Business. 23(1), 67- 81
[10] Peeples, D. (2002) "Instilling Consumer Confidence in E-Commerce." SAM Advanced Management Journal. 26-32
[11] Ravi, K, & Andrew, W, Electronic Commerce, A Manager’s Guide, 1997, Addison-Wesley, p.133
[12] Reed 2004, 141
[13] Anup K. Gosh, “Securing E-Commerce: A Systematic Approach”, http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/9704-04.htm, accessed 09 January, 2008
[14] Reed 2004, 180
[15] Article 2.
[16] Todd 2005, 103
[17] Todd 2005, 111
[18] Todd 2005, 112
[19] Public Key Encryption and Public Key Infrastructure- Explained, Available at http://www.safe-mail.net/support/eng/help/protectsecure/pki.html#top, accessed 13 June, 2008
[20] 314 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002)
[21] LLC, 285 F.3d 808; 2002 WL 496943 (9th Cir. 2002)
[22] 741 N.Y.S.2d 91 (April 5, 2002)
[23] Todd 2005, 127
[24] This law is replaced by the US E-Sign Act
[25] UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures (2001) Available in: http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/electcom/ml-elecsig-e.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2008]
[26] As seen in Article 3
[27] See Article 6
[28] See Article 6.1
[29] See Article 4.1
[30] The European Union Directive on a Community Framework for Electronic Signatures 1999. Available in: http://www.jus.unitn.it/USERS/PASCUZZI/privcomp98-99/topics/6/firma/propostadirettivaUE.htm [Accessed 10 June 2008]
[31] EU Directive
[32] Simons, A. and Simons, B. (2001) E-commerce Law. Palladin Law Publishing. p 33
[33] Brazell, L. (2004) Electronics Signature Law and Regulation. Sweet & Maxwell. p164.
[34] Spindler, G. and Borner, F. (2002) E-Commerce Law in Europe and USA. Springer. p260
[35] Spindler and Borner (2002, 295)
[36] Electronic Signatures Regulation 2002. Available at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20020318.htm [accessed 11 June 2008]
[37] Rosas, R. (2003) "Comparative Study of the Formation of Electronic Contracts in American Law with References to International and Mexican Law." Houston Journal of International Law. 26(1), 63-125.
[38] UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures (2001) Available in: http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/electcom/ml-elecsig-e.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2008]
[39] UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures (2001)
[40] Jackson, P., Harris, L. and Eckersley, P. (2003) E-Business Fundamentals: Managing Organisations in the Electronic Age. New York: Routledge. P253
[41] Article 6, UNCITRAL Model Law
[42] Article 5, UNCITRAL Model Law
[43] Article 8, EU Directive
0 comments:
Post a Comment