Contracts for Online Businesses

Week 5

“In light of the unfair contracts laws, do you think that a web operator should be able to change the terms of use of their website without giving users adequate notice? Consider the practicality of such a requirement for the website operator, balanced against the rights of the web site user.”

Based on our discussions regarding the new unfair contract term legislation, I have been examining if web sites should be able to change their terms without notice to its users. It may be necessary to change the terms of a contract, if it does not cause an imbalance between the parties' rights, is a necessary term, and not cause detriment to a party, as outlined by Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (2010). However I believe notice is required to comply with the offer and acceptance element of a contract.

For example, I use professional networking site Linkedin which uses a browse-wrap style of contract were a hyperlink of the conditions is posted, compared to a click-wrap which requires users to agree to the terms before use. The conditions on Linkedin (2011) highlighted in Figure 1, state that changes are communicated to its users through alerts on their websites and email associated with accounts. I find this a very useful approach, however it may be ineffective to individually contract its 150 million users. Lastly there are enforcement issues with browsewrap website as users may not be aware of the condition, nonetheless, the Register.com Inc v Verio Inc case provides relief as enforceability depends on the regularity of use which, for a networking site, is very regular.

Figure 1 - Linkedin User Agreement, Notifications and Service Messages

Reference List:

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. (2010). Unfair contract terms. Retrieved from: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/930021

Linkedin.com (2011, June 16). User agreement. Retrieved from: http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=user_agreement&trk=hb_ft_userag