E-Commerce Flashcards
Gibson v Manchester
Case is a general English legal authority – construction of agreement looking at it through intention of parties, view of the reasonable bystander = when has a contract been entered into
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]
Can only incorporate terms before the contract is entered into
s.57(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979
- applies to online
Peter Smythe v vincent Thomas [2007]
australian case but can relate interpretation
Art 9-16 of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU
Art 9(1) cooling-off period of 2 weeks
Art 16(d) excludes only ‘public auctions’ (i.e. Art 2(13) a method of sale where goods or services are offered by the trader to consumers, who attend or are given the possibility to attend the auction in person, through a transparent, competitive bidding procedure run by an auctioneer and where the successful bidder is bound to purchase the goods or services) – thus online auctions are not excluded from the cooling-off
Ryanair v Billigluege.de GMBH [2010]
Irish case - must be a provsion - contract in webseite -Biligfluege said ryan air hadn’t provided anything - Irish court rejected this as of the scraped data
Spreadex Ltd v Cochrane [2012]
Defendant successfully argued not bound by the clause as not a binding agreement – because when signed customer agreement, you did not receive anything in return – only the promise that you may be able to place bets, not definitely place bets but only may be able to – courts agree with that argument
Tinn v Hoffman &Co [1873]
Intention to contract - o Need to have an awareness that what you say has legal significance
o Concerning identical cross offers between Mr Tinn and Mr Hoffman for the iron
Art 8(2) of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU
Essentially if there is an obligation to pay in the consumer context you must make this very clear
