The nature of fairness in contracts: An electronic contract perspective

Dona Budi Kharisma; Agus Yudha Hernoko; Prawitra Thalib; Digvijay Singh Rana

doi:10.26555/jhn.v16i1.29650

Authors

Dona Budi Kharisma Department of Privat Law, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1361-5613
Agus Yudha Hernoko Department of Privat Law, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
Prawitra Thalib Department of Privat Law, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
Digvijay Singh Rana Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26555/jhn.v16i1.29650

Keywords:

Electronic Contract, Contractual Fairness, Sign-in Wrap Agreement, Browser Wrap Agreement

Abstract

Introduction to the Problem: The development of information technology has given rise to various types of electronic contracts in the form of adhesion contracts. Unfair legal issues surround the contract formation process and the content of new electronic contract models, such as browser wrap agreements and sign-in wrap agreements. In several cases that have been decided by the Court, the panel of judges has its own standards for deciding disputes based on a fair electronic contract.

Purpose/Study Objectives: This paper aims to elaborate on the nature of contractual fairness from an electronic contract perspective.

Design/Methodology/Approach: This study employed the statute approach and the case approach. This research examines various regulations relating to agreements, electronic contracts, the doctrine of unconscionability and examizing a number of decisions pertaining to electronic contracts from courts in Indonesia as well as various other nations.

Findings: The research results can be concluded that nature of fairness in electronic contracts can be tested through two indicators, the process of forming the contract and clauses in the agreement. Electronic contracts are considered procedurally unfair if the weak party does not know and realizes that they are bound by a contract. An electronic contract is considered substantively unfair if a clause in the contract places an unreasonable burden on the weaker party. In addition to the doctrine of unconscionability, the principles of transparency, duty to read, and reasonable expectation must also be used to ensure fairness in electronic contracts. These principles need to be formulated into the norms of the Indonesian Information Transaction Act to protect consumers from unfair contracts.

Paper Type: Research Article

References

Ayres, I., & Schwartz, A. (2014). The no-reading problem in consumer contract law. Stanford Law Review, 66(3), 545–609. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2424 6723

Benoliel, U. & Becher, S. I. (2019). The duty to read the unreadable. Boston College Law Review 60, 2255. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3313837

Boliek, B. E. (2022). Upgrading unconscionability: a common law ally for a digital world. Maryland Law Review, 81(1), 46–102. https://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=154910369&lang=es&site=ehost-live

Canino, E. (2017). The electronic “sign-in-wrap” contract: Issues of notice and assent, the average internet user standard, and unconscionability. Erin. 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 535, expected 2017, 1–29.

Calleros, C. R. (2016). U.S. unconscionability and article 1171 of the reformed French civil code. Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé, 68(4), 891–905. https://doi.org/10.3406/ridc.2016.20736

Calleros, C. R. (2017). U.S. uncoscionability and article 1171 of the new French civil code: Achieving balance in statutory regulation and judicial intervention. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 45 (2).

Eisenberg, M. A. (2018). Foundational principles of contract law. Oxford Academic: New York.

Epic Games. (2022). Term of service, accessed from https://www.epicgames.com/ site/en-US/tos on 27 September 2023.

Gamarello, T. (2015). The evolving doctrine of unconscionability in modern electronic contracting. In Law School Student Scholarship. Seton Hall University.

Gardner, J. (2021). Being conscious of unconscionability in modern times: Heller v Uber Technologies. Modern Law Review, 84(4), 874–885. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1468-2230.12616

Gerodimos, R., & Justinussen, J. (2015). Obama’s 2012 Facebook campaign: Political communication in the age of the like button. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 12(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/193316 81.2014.982266

Harvard Law Review. (2021a). Contract law-unconscionability doctrine-supreme court of Canada targets standard form contracts- uber technologies inc. v. heller, 2020 SCC 16, 447, accessed from https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/134-Harv.-L.-Rev.-2598-1.pdf on 4 February 2022.

Harvard Law Review. (2021b). Recent case: 2020 SCC 16, 447 D.L.R. 4th 179 (Can.), Uber Technologies inc. v. Heller supreme court of Canada targets standard form contracts, accessed from https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/05/ uber-technologies-inc-v-heller/ on 2 February 2023.

Helleringer, G., & Sibony, A-L., (2017). European consumer protection through the behavioral lens. Columbia Journal of European Law, 23 (3).

Kelly, B. (2017). The (social) media is the message: Theories of liability for new media artists. The Columbia Journal of Law & The Arts, 40(4), 503–532. https://doi.org/10.7916/jla.v40i4.2040

Kharisma, D. B., & Diakanza, A. (2024). Patient personal data protection: Comparing the health-care regulations in Indonesia, Singapore and the European Union. International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, 17(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHRH-04-2022-0035

Kharisma, D. B. (2024). Doktrin unconscionability dalam kontrak elektronik layanan digital. Fakultas Hukum Unair: Surabaya Indonesia.

Koenig, T. H., & Rustad, M. L. (2015). Digital scarlet letters: Social media stigmatization of the poor and what can be done. Nebraska Law Review, 93(3), 592–635.

Kuklin, B. H. (2001). The justification for protecting reasonable expectations. Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 29: (3).

Loos, M. B. M. (2016). The language of standard contract terms in online B2C-contracts. Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-45.

Loos, M., & Luzak, J. (2021). Update the unfair contract terms directive for digital services. February. https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=446faa08-bedd-42e7-a4ec-6adfd6357b17

Luzak, J., Wulf, A. J., Seizov, O., Loos, M. B. M., & Junuzović, M. (2023). ABC of online consumer disclosure duties: Improving transparency and legal certainty in Europe. Journal of Consumer Policy, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10603-023-09543-w

Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2022). Indonesian supreme court decision number 1370 K/Pid/2022, accessed from https://sipp.pn-medankota.go.id/index.php/detil_perkara on 27 September 2023.

McCall, B. M. (2020). Demystifying unconscionability: An historical and empirical analysis. Villanova Law Review, 65 (4), 773. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. 3543682

Meta. (2022). Terms of service (last update: 4 January 2022), accessed from https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms on 27 September 2023.

Microsoft. (2023). Microsoft customer agreement (last update: March 1, 2023), accessed from https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/docs/customeragree ment on 27 September 2023.

Murray, J. E. (2014). The judicial vision of contract: The constructed circle of assent and unconscionability. The Duquesne Law Review, Vol. 52 (2), 263–274.

Permana, W. P. N. (2021). Reviewing information and electronic transaction act from a convention on cybercrime of 2001. Jurnal Hukum Novelty, 12(2), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.26555/novelty.v12i2.a17679

Sen, A. (2000). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Penguin Book, London.

Sovern, J. (2018). The content of consumer law classes III. Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law, Vol. 22, Forthcoming 2018, St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 18-0014, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract= 3203898

Suryadi, & Rahayu, T. (2023). Legal interpretation of terms, phrases, and clauses in the notarial deeds. Jurnal Hukum Novelty, 14(2), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.26555/novelty.v14i2.a25751

Trakic, A. (2016). The inequality of bargaining power: Does Malaysia need this doctrine? Australian Journal of Asian Law, 17(1), 1–19.

Whatsapp LLC. (2021). WhatsApp terms of service (effective date: January 4, 2021), accessed from https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/terms-of-service?lang=en #terms-of-service-disclaimers on 28 September 2023.

White, J. J., Summers, R. S., Barnhizer, D. D., Barnes, W., & Snyder, F. G. (2022). Uniform commercial code (7th ed.). West Academic Publishing.

Wiwoho, J., Trinugroho, I., Pujiyono, & Kharisma, D.B. (2023). Hukum ekonomi digital. Thafa Media: Yogyakarta, Indonesia.