PIU report and human rights: e-commerce Bill

[Nicholas Bohm]

At 04:56 PM 6/21/1999 +0100, David Swarbrick wrote:
[snip]
>The latest version of Virgin's terms includes the following
>   
>I. Submissions 
>1. All information and material submitted to and accepted by Virgin Net
>via the Service or that you publish on any public area via the Service
>shall be deemed and remain the property of Virgin Net. Virgin Net shall
>be free to use, edit, copy, republish and distribute (for any purpose)
>any such information and material and any ideas, concepts, know-how or
>techniques contained in such information or materials. Virgin Net shall
>not be subject to any obligations of confidence regarding such
>information or materials except as required by law.
>
>This seems pretty wide to me. Virgin seem to be using plain English as a
>way of hiding the terrible truth about what they assert.

As I have said in another message, I don't read it as an assignment.

>I come back to the question I had about the acceptance of these terms,
>and the need for writing. Nich is correct about the wide meaning of
>writing in CDPA, but s 90 requires 'writing signed', not just writing. 

I agree (and had overlooked the signature requirement of section 90).

>I ask again, because I know this is Nich's own question, whether a push
>of a button accepting terms can indicate a sufficient intention to
>indicate that what is being done goes beyond assent in some sense to a
>signature.  I think in this case not. I think in any event, as others
>have found, the T&Cs are fairly well hidden.

If I am right about it not being an assignment, then the point doesn't
arise; but as far as I am aware the cases so far decided on signatures have
all required a mark of some kind, and not mere evidence of assent.  Even
when an electronic document is signed, I think a court would require that
the signature left some mark on the document or connected unambiguously
with it.  By itself a button click probably isn't a signature:  perhaps it
is if there is a legend "To sign this electronic document, click the button
marked 'Sign' ", and the effect of doing so is to send a copy of the
document with text added like "Signed at [time] on [date] by [name]".
Better still, no doubt, if there were a signature with a private key.

>I echo the comments about it being an unfair term, indeed it is
>gloriously so, but I am interested here in the signatures point.
>
>-- 
>David Swarbrick, Solicitor, West Yorkshire
>Web: http://www.swarb.co.uk/  david@swarb.freeuk.com Tel: +44(0)1484 722531
>Home of the law-index (9500+ case digests).  IT and IP Law and contracts.
>The Law Society regulates us in the conduct of investment business
>
Regards,

Nicholas Bohm

Salkyns, Great Canfield,
Takeley, Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone		01279 871272	(+44 1279 871272)
Fax		01279 870215	(+44 1279 870215)
Mobile   	0860 636749  	(+44 860 636749)

PGP RSA 1024 bit public key ID: 0x08340015.  Fingerprint:
9E 15 FB 2A 54 96 24 37  98 A2 E0 D1 34 13 48 07
PGP DSS/DH 1024/3072 public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF