With the recent crackdown by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) on unfair contract terms in online contracts, the question whether website operators terms and conditions are contractually binding has risen again. This is commonly referred to as the click wrap vs browse wrap debate.
Despite the paucity of Australian case law on this issue, the case of eBay International AG v Creative Festival Entertainment Pty Limited (ACN 098 183 281) [2006] FCA 1768 (18 December 2006) (eBay) provides guidance on how a court is likely to determine whether or not the terms and conditions on a website will form a binding contract.
In eBay, the question for determination was whether the operator of the website (Creative) had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by including a condition that tickets resold via online auction sites could be cancelled if onsold. The Court held that the relevant conditions “conveyed a misleading representation that the seller is legally entitled to and would detect and cancel any ticket which is resold for profit and the holder of that ticket would be refused entry to the event“.
What was the Court’s reasoning?
In arriving at the conclusion that it did, the Rares J cited various cases which were authority for the principle that the parties cannot rely on the terms and conditions of contract unless at the time the contract was made, the issuer did “all that was reasonably necessary to bring the terms to the other party’s attention“. In case this it was held to be misleading and deceptive to purport to rely on conditions which were not adequately brought to the attention of purchasers.
This case highlights the importance of getting the basics right in preparing online contracts particularly in light of the consumer protection provisions contained in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Further information
If your business needs more information about online contracts, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about online law
-
Swiss company hands over user data
A Court order in Switzerland raises questions about Australian law enforcement’s ability to access encrypted data. This article explores the legislative perspective on accessing private or business communications, and the steps taken to protect transmitted information.
-
Director identification numbers now a reality
The Federal Government has passed a law requiring all directors to obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN). Learn more about the implications of this law, including the potential penalties for non-compliance.
-
Online business promotion and liability for third-party comments
Businesses hosting online discussion forums must be aware of the potential for hefty damages claims if they fail to remove defamatory comments made by third parties. Find out more about the implications of the High Court case of Australian New Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27.
-
Parliament passes Government surveillance bill
The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021 added three (3) warrants, allowing law enforcement to access data and take control of online accounts to obtain evidence of serious online crime.
-
Data breach compliance and response plans
Dundas Lawyers create tailored data breach response plans to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Plans include actions, registers, records, tests and tasks. Get an obligation-free and confidential discussion to learn more.
-
Are email trackers admissible as evidence?
The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) is silent, but the Court considers email trackers and read receipts as evidence in civil and intellectual property litigation. As seen in Jaffari v Grabowski [2013] NSWCA 114, sender’s receipt of confirmation of email relay is a matter for the recipient.
