Paper Example on Enforceability of Online Contracts

Introduction

In the current online age website owners and users, nearly all the time reach into accords. These forms of agreements come with a fair share of terms ranging from the choice of law, licensing, and policy that dictate privacy. These types of contractual agreements are grouped on the basis of the terms of assentation to the agreement or the consumer or user notice of this accord. These contracts are likely to be either 'browse-wrap' or a 'click-wrap' form of agreement. Most of these are business websites that have legal accords that govern the user-company relationship, the agreements ought to be enforceable for instance privacy policy. Disputes over the enforceability of this kind of agreement are imminent mainly because the terms entail obligations and rights exchange between the two parties; the user and the website owner.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A couple of enforceability disputes have caught the attention of the courtrooms. Some plaintiffs allege that they never signed any contractual agreement beforehand citing overreaching terms, the defendant, for instance, may cite that the contacts were elaborate and well binding with a couple of pages full of terms with language that is readily accessible. Most of these disputes are based on enforceability assumptions by the offerees (Moringiello & Ottaviani, 2). A large number of internet consumers portray some trait which includes but not limited to, inattentiveness, and desire for speed thus highly unlikely that they will read through agreements. Little or no attention is paid to understand terms, they just 'click'. Online users are on the brink of legal action since a good number exercise negligence or unawareness of a 'click's' binding, legal consequences are therefore bound (Cheryl, 13).

The courts hold that for click wraps, clicking indicates assent thus the offeree ought to take time before committing to the offeror's click. Length, density, the set of terms, and language complexity play part wholly in such cases. In a case Sex search versus Doe, the court looked into both the terms of the agreement and click legitimacy. The conclusion was drawn on the basis of the bargaining ability of the terms, it was deemed bargained for, thus unconscionability claims lacked bearing. Website owners are keen on the terms of the agreement that they put forth, they highlight, bold, and use capital letter where possible. Precisely, denied claims of terms unconscionability hold no waters given the current standards for denial or acceptance at a court for a significant number of types of wrap contracts (Terms Feed; Browsewrap vs. Clickwrap).

On the other hand, browse wraps pose more concern on enforceability mainly due to them having no clicking involvement and are seen lacking any assent evidence. By simply using a website, the user is bound to an agreement whether knowingly or not. For enforceability of this kind of an agreement, the offeror ought to provide the user with an actual notice of agreement from within the site for the user to consent. In comparison to a click wrap accord, a user is not bound to take affirmative action (Terms Feed; Browsewrap vs. Clickwrap). Notably, court orders enforceability of click wraps agreement rather than browse wraps citing that sites fail to provide a clearly understood and visible notice of terms of the agreement.

By law, there is no clear-cut method of showing agreements either by use of click wrap or browse wrap methods. However, laws on privacy across the globe stress on easing the accessibility of Privacy Policies agreements. Inarguably, terms and conditions are worth having and are highly recommended but Privacy Policies are a requirement as the law stipulates. To determine the enforceability of both the agreements, traditional contract doctrines are applied with much focus on a plaintiff's awareness on assent to an agreement. The manifestation of an assent is void unless one party wishes to take part and is fully aware or knows that the other party may deduce intent for assent (Cheryl, 14). There has to be clarity on assent manifestation. For agreements enforceability, the parties ought to agree to a given contract aspect without leaving out any terms, in-depth awareness of the existence of the agreement is a requirement as well. These factors can be broken down into the provision of notice, consent, and enforcement fairness (Alison & Cathy).

The problem that remains at large is the legal consent requirement. The potential of click wrap agreements alterations catch courts attention thus it is required that firms keep records of their entire versions of online policy agreements as proof of consent by every offeree, with each modification having a new user consent.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, both the website users and owners stand to gain from a clear-cut presentation of terms. It would cut down the hours spent tackling the high number of such court cases. The owners can, therefore, sit back and relax knowing that the laid down agreements will be followed to the latter, whereas the users will have a better understanding of the terms that govern any form of online transaction or website usage. However, not all terms warrant courts' assent and enforceability agreement, that is, offerees are required to commit to an agreement for instance through checking a box that reads 'I have Read and agree to the Terms of Use.'

Works Cited

Alison, Brehm S and Lee Cathy. "From the Chair: "Click Here to Accept the Terms of Service"." Communications Lawyer (2015). Web Access.

Cheryl, Preston B. " Please Note: You Have Waived Everything:" Can Notice Redeem Online Contracts?" (2014): 9-23. Document.

Moringiello, Juliet, and John Ottaviani. "Online Contracts: We May Modify These Terms at Any Time, Right?" Business Law Today (2016): 1-4. Document.

Terms Feed; Browsewrap vs. Clickwrap. 2015. Web Access. April 14, 2018.