Putting Revised Contract Terms on Website

Hooray !

I learn from Euclid Managers Insurance Blogthat the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (it covers California) has confirmed that the answer to the question of whether a service provider may change the terms of its service contract by merely posting a revised contract on its website is NO. Let me repeat that: NO.

This result, I would have thought, is the only one consistent with established principles of contract law (which do not differ across the English-speaking world), but as always some clients can find lawyers to agree to defy logic on their behalf.

The Ninth Circuit inter alia noted that the customer:

... could only have learned of the new contract terms by going to the company’s website and examining the contract for changes. Without notice, a party wouldn’t know when to check a website and might have to do it as often as daily. And a person would have to compare every word of the original contract with the posted contract in a search for changes

Then the court addressed concepts of contract law: parties to a contract are not obligated to check the terms to learn whether they have been changed by the other side. A party can’t by itself change the terms of an agreement; it must first obtain the other party’s consent. A “revised contract” put forth by one party is nothing more than an offer that is not binding until accepted by the other party. And generally an offeree cannot actually consent to an offer unless he knows it exists....

The growing use of websites to disseminate information and terms to customers and visitors, whether through pages addressing Privacy and Terms of Use or through click-through agreements, may lead some parties to go too far. Specifically, website owners may place too much faith in protection that is perceived to be afforded by simply placing information and/or changed terms on their website and pay too little attention to fundamental contract principles.

The above quotations are extracted from T. R. Franklin's article on Euclid Managers Insurance Blog, which I encourage you to read and, indeed, to which a subscription would be a good idea.

Sharing Wireless

Eoin O'Dell continues to regularly deliver good stuff. (Where does he find the time ? Surely he should be in the middle of correcting examination scripts right now ?)

His latest is a useful piece on the legality of sharing wireless internet connections.

Outlook Express- be careful

Many small business-people, including lawyers, use OE as their e-mail software. Nothing wrong with that; I do, too.

However, OE is not suitable for holding hundreds of e-mail messages for record purposes. I have heard of horror stories of people losing years of valuable correspondence because OE has become corrupted, allegedly due to an inability to handle "huge" folders of old messages.

Er, I've just remembered: I myself am one of those people !

Two points:

1. If you, as you should, back up all your files, this disaster will not happen to you. (Or, rather, you will have a recovery option).

2. Be kind to your OE: Tidy up your folders regularly and move old messages to a separate storage area.