Internet Law Case Study: Tina Electronics Europe Ltd.

Internet law
At the outset, it is submitted that electronic contracts do not follow the traditional posting rules of offer and acceptance, outlined in various international documents like the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980. A distance contract is defined under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (‘CCR’) as, “a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded”.
The information that is to be provided is given under Schedule 2 of the CCR where point (l) says that, “where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38 are to be provided.” Thus, Tina Electronics Europe Ltd. was required to inform Jammie of the conditions under which he can terminate the contract. They were also required to inform him that he had fourteen days to cancel his order even after delivery and acceptance of the mobile. The seller was also required to inform him in writing after the order was placed and prior to the delivery of the iCall 6, complete details on how and when the goods maybe returned. No such information was provided to Jammie. As already mentioned, Jammie merely received a confirmation message on the website, which was not on a durable or retrievable form. He was also was not able to access the Terms and Conditions of the Cancellation Policy easily. In fact, the hyperlink where these terms and conditions were available was difficult to find. Further a website link is not a durable medium as the content on it can be changed without informing the consumer. .Thus, failure to provide complete information as required by the law, allows Jammie to claim for the breach of contract and seek an appropriate remedy. Also since Tina
As a defence, the sellers will have to prove that they complied with all the conditions of the PEC and took reasonable care in all circumstances. In the present case, since Tina Electronics’ failed to comply with the provisions of the PEC, Jammie can claim compensation for the unsolicited emails he started receiving after he visited the website.
In a recent landmark decision, Sky News producer Roddy Mansfield won damages from a retail company which sent him marketing emails without his consent. He relied on Regulation 22 PEC and on the Information Commissioner's Guidance on email marketing which states in paragraph 71 that, “The fact that someone has failed to object or opt out only means that they have not objected. It does not automatically mean that they have consented.” Similar Steve Higgins was able to get damages of £1,750 from various companies which refused to stop sending him unsolicited