Introduction

Today ‘s universe of engineering it is like an electronic universe without boundary lines. Globalization and international trade has become really much convenient with the modern computing machine engineering. The synergistic webs like Internet connects and nexus ‘s everyone in any portion of the universe. Technology forms the substructure of concern operations as the universe on commercialism topographic points greater trust on engineering. The progress of the engineering challenges to today ‘s jurisprudence and introduces greater trouble in building an equal model for e-commerce. Contract in ecommerce is either through web site or electronic mail. No affair how an electronic contract is created, the basic rules of offer and credence will ever use. An offer must be made which must so be unconditionally accepted. It was non clear whether postal regulation was applied in electronic mail as The Electronic Communications Act 2000 [ 1 ] failed to turn to the of import issue of whether the postal regulation applies to electronic mail. It is an arguable country and will be discussed in item below. The overview of the postal credence regulation and a description of electronic mail will be discussed and compared. In 1818, there were many different positions about the application of postal regulation in contract formation like electronic mail. The principle of the application of this regulation will be discussed and argued in the context of electronic mail as electronic mail is non an instantaneous method of communicating and will be seen if postal regulation can be applied to it. In United Kingdom there is no instance jurisprudence proposing the extension of postal regulation to e-mail credence. There is no settled instance to propose when an credence, communicated electronically, will be treated binding, although it is thought that the reception regulation will use. The instance of Adams v Lindsell [ 2 ] established the first postal regulation credence when the tribunal had to make up one’s mind the minute of contract formation by station. The tribunal found that the parties did non cognize the exact clip when pass oning credence by station. The parties were non cognizant of the communicating as postal communicating is capable to detain. This was led to a preparation of the regulation as it created many jobs. This regulation as accepted in the common jurisprudence legal systems is: “ Where the fortunes are such that it must hold been within the contemplation of the parties that, harmonizing to the ordinary uses of world, the station might be used as a agency of pass oning the credence of an offer, the credence is complete every bit shortly as it is posted ” [ 3 ] . The uncertainness sing the minute of contract formation does non go on in the environment of direct communicating or even in distance catching where an instantaneous method of communicating is used. In this sort of catching, all parties are cognizant of contract decision and they do non confront debatable issues such as hold or failure of transmittal which occur in non-instantaneous communications. In contrast, the instance of Adams v Lindsell [ 4 ] , adopted the regulation to avoid “ the extraordinary and arch ” effects which could follow if it were held that an offer might be revoked at any clip until the offeree was in the place of “ accepting it had been really received ” [ 5 ] . Another ground has been suggested for the cogency of this regulation, is that the offerer must be considered as holding made the offer throughout the whole clip that his offer is in the station, and that hence, the understanding between the parties is complete every bit shortly as the credence is posted [ 6 ] . ( Henthorn V. Fraser [ 1892 ] 2 Ch.27, 31 ) . This thought depends on the premise that the offer creates a power that binds both parties and that an credence is an exercising of that power. Consequently, the offerer has, in the beginning, full power to find the Acts of the Apostless that are to represent credence. However, after the offerer makes that finding, the legal effects are out of his custodies because an offer has so become effectual and the offeree has an advantage over the offerer in the contract formation procedure. The offeree may necessitate extra clip to make up one’s mind whether or non to accept the offer and during that clip, may necessitate to pass money and attempt in making to a determination. It can be argued that if catching by electronic mail is similar to undertaking by station so there will be no any job in using the postal regulation in electronic mail credence.

The Postal Acceptance Rule and Email Credences

Several writers express the position that electronic mail and other methods of on-line catching are instantaneous communications and that the general credence regulation should use to their credences. In fact, this statement may be true in regard to website credences since there is no existent infinite in clip between the sending and the credence of the offer. Transmission of electronic mail messages are different than that go on in website catching as we will analyze in the followers. How is E-mail Transmitted? A user who has an email history can outline a message that he is traveling to direct without holding a connexion to the cyberspace. After the user creates this message on the transmitter ‘s computing machine the first phase of the electronic mail ‘s journey starts when he opens the connexion to the cyberspace waiter supplier ( ISP ) . The 2nd phase occurs at the minute the transmitter really presses the send button, which, so long as the web is non busy and the receiving system ‘s electronic mail reference has been right entered, transmits it along the international web of computing machines until it reaches the intended receiving system ‘s ISP. From the ISP the electronic mail enters the cyberspace where it may resile from a lower limit of one computing machine to many 1000000s, before making the ISP of the receiving system. The receiver will so be able to recover the message by logging onto their ISP and downloading the message. In fact, the electronic mail ‘s journey, while going through the cyberspace, may affect going across the universe even though the individual having the message is in the following edifice. This journey takes a minute, until the receiver receives the email message. This fact does non differ even, if the cyberspace service supplier for the offeree is the same as for the offerer, as would be the instance if they are members in the corporation or the university electronic mail web. This is because the transmittal of electronic mail through the web depends wholly on the viability of the ISP for the offeree or the offerer. The velocity of electronic mail messages depends, in these instances, on whether one or more of these service suppliers are busy with 1000000s of applications from other cyberspace users. Considerable holds may happen in email communicating between when a message is sent and when it is received by the receiver. These holds result from the complex way over which the electronic mail is sent. This explains why, on juncture, an electronic mail takes a longer clip than usual to make the receiver. Therefore, it can be said that electronic mail is non an instantaneous signifier of communicating, because as explained above, there can be gap in clip between despatch and bringing. This decision was late pointed out in Singapore, in the judgement of Rajah JC during the instance of Chwee Kin Keong V Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [ 7 ] , ( [ 2005 ] SGCA 2 ) “ … unlike a facsimile or a telephone call, it is non instantaneous. Electronic mails are processed through waiters, routers and internet service suppliers. Different protocols may ensue in messages geting in an inexplicable signifier. Arrival can besides be immaterial unless a receiver accesses the electronic mail, but in this regard electronic mail does non truly differ from mail that has non been opened. “ [ 8 ] If email catching can be considered as a non-instantaneous communicating, the tribunals so argue that at which point of clip it should be considered to hold been sent. Analyzing the nature of despatch is an indispensable point for the tribunals if they want to use the postal regulation in the context of electronic mail. Normally, an credence is considered as holding been sent at the clip the credence went out of the ownership of the offeree and into the ownership of the 3rd party allowed to have it. The 3rd party, of class, is neither an agent of the offeree nor of the offerer, but in the state of affairs of electronic mail, it is the ISP. Even though the offeree ‘s waiter is non under the offeree ‘s control, it is considered a supplier for the cyberspace service to the offeree and likewise, it is non agent to the offeree, as it is an independent entity. In transmittal of the credence through electronic mail, the message is considered to be out of the offeree ‘s place at the clip the offeree connects to the cyberspace and presses the ‘send ‘ button. The offeree may have recognition that the message is successfully sent, otherwise the offeree will have a message in his mail box system, bespeaking a failed bringing notice of an electronic mail which has non been successfully transmitted. There are times when a computing machine freezes upon directing a message, the offeree should at that clip resend the electronic mail, because the message may non hold been sent or may hold been altered when it was frozen.

Application of the Postal Acceptance Rule to E-mail Credences

The first ground for widening the application of postal credence regulation to e-mail contracts is the absence of any legislative constitution sing finding the decision of email credences. There are two illustrations of statute law, English jurisprudence and the other in the USA, in regard to the US unvarying Torahs. In general, even though the electronic commercialism statute law, in the UK and the US, do non take to supply significant alterations to the regulations of contract formation, peculiarly sing electronic mail catching, they do supply elucidation of the catching procedure, particularly in undertaking through web sites [ 9 ] . ( Arts 9,10, 11 of the Ecommerce Directive 2000 ) . The US Torahs are active in finding the clip and topographic point of despatch and reception of electronic messaging. UCITA base for “ Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act ” . UCITA is a bill of exchange province jurisprudence for contracts associating to package and other signifiers of computing machine information. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws ( NCCUSL ) drafted this theoretical account jurisprudence. Taking the Model Law ( UNICTRAL ) attack as a chief beginning, US statute law associating to this treatment reject the application of the postal credence regulation for electronic minutess and follow the general, for the credence to be effectual. The grounds for this are foremost, in the US, the application of the general regulation depends on whether the method of communicating is instantaneous or “ well instantaneous as bipartisan communicating ” . Second, US Torahs, particularly the UETA.UETA clarifies the minute when a message is considered as holding been received by the receiver and when it could be accessible in order to be received. The UETA contains a subdivision entitled ‘Time and Place of Sending and Receipt ‘ , which states that an electronic record is deemed to be sent when it is decently addressed or directed to another receiver, is in a signifier capable of being read by the other parties ‘ system and when it is out of the control of the transmitter but nevertheless, it does non set up when the credence becomes effectual and the contract is formed. Additionally, subdivision 15 ( B ) of the UETA [ 10 ] , states that ‘an electronic record is deemed standard when it enters an information processing system designated by the receiver for having such messages, and it is in a signifier capable of being processed by that system. [ 11 ] ‘ See Arts 9, 10, 11 of the Ecommerce Directive 2000 [ 12 ] , which is unvarying commercial codification for package licences and other computing machine information minutess, goes farther, with elaborate commissariats to bespeak explicitly the application of the general regulation in catching by electronic agencies. Article 215 [ 13 ] of the Act provides for electronic messages to be in consequence at the clip of reception, irrespective of whether any person is cognizant of that reception. Receipt is defined as: “ In the instance of an electronic notice… coming into being in an information processing system or at an reference in that system in a signifier capable of being processed by or perceived from a system of that type by a receiver, if the receiver uses, or otherwise has designated or holds out, that topographic point or system for reception of notices of the sort to be given and the transmitter does non cognize that the notice can non be accessed from that topographic point ” [ 14 ] . ( See UCITA Art. 102 ( A ) ( 52 ) ) In this Act, under the subdivision entitled “ Offer and Acceptance in General ” , S.203 ( 4 ) [ 15 ] , it states that “ if an offer in an electronic message evokes an electronic message accepting the offer, a contract is formed, when an electronic credence is received ” . This means that UCITA considers that the general regulation should use to electronic minutess, even if the receiver is non cognizant of its reception. At the English statute law degree, there is no indicant of intervention of decision of contract or timing issues as there is in the UETA or the UCITA. The Regulations of Electronic Commerce 2002 [ 16 ] do non hold any article indicating when a message is considered as holding either been sent or received. These Regulations brought the bulk of the commissariats of the Directive into force on 21st August 2002. The Electronic Commerce Directive requires member provinces to set up a slightly more complicated regulation that departs from the UETA and the UNCITRAL, Article 11 [ 17 ] provides: Member states shall guarantee, except when otherwise agreed by parties who are non consumers, that in instances where the receiver of the service places his order through technological agencies, the undermentioned rules apply: the service supplier has to admit the reception and they are deemed to be received when the parties to whom they are addressed are able to entree them. Unlike UETA, the Regulations do nevertheless, concentrate on handiness and the catching procedure on the web site, instead than analyse in deepness, the general and obscure construct “ able to entree ” . This is because the Regulations purpose to supply transparence by necessitating information to be supplied. It can be said that this account is exemplifying of the tendency in the two states to see on-line catching, particularly undertaking through web sites, as an illustration of an instantaneous method of catching and therefore use the general regulation to this type of undertaking in finding the minute of contract decision. This is non the instance with regard to electronic mail, where there is no expressed proviso that indicates the nature of such catching. It can be inferred nevertheless, from the general commissariats sing clocking issues in electronic minutess, that electronic mail will non have the same intervention as web sites. UNICITRAL Model Law provided aid over electronic mail credence which is non yet been adopted by English and European Law. Even there are no instances refering the timing issue of credence in electronic commercialism in United Kingdom The 2nd of import ground for using the postal regulation is that it avoids any concern uncertainness sing the timing of electronic mail contracts. In fact, using the postal regulation will avoid such uncertainness and make a definite clip sing to e-mail contract decision. In add-on, electronic mail is capable to detain as it is considered as a non-instantaneous method of communicating. Email is besides known as digital manner of station system. There are many possible manner for an electronic mail to be delayed as there can be choping, failure of web or wrong electronic mail reference. The offerer therefore should take the hazard of non- bringing of the electronic mail. However, there were besides similar issues of hold in teletypewriter. Likewise with electronic mail, the mere possibility of holds, wrong references or technological failures may non be sufficient to make a cosmopolitan regulation that an email credence is effectual at a clip other than communicating. Generally, tribunals tend to use the general regulation in instances where there is an instantaneous method of communicating, such as the telephone or the EDI or where they are virtually instantaneous and direct, such as teletypewriter. ( Entores Ltd. V Miles Far East Corporation [ 1955 ] 2 QB 327 ) [ 18 ] This attack is clear in the tribunals ‘ determinations that hold that credences sent via teletypewriter are merely effectual upon their reception by the offerer and a similar, albeit obiter, statement in relation to fax communications was made by Lord Gill in the instance of Merrick Homes v Duff [ 19 ] . When there are troubles in the transmittal, such as proficient hold or human mistake, the state of affairs is non really clear, even in the instance of instantaneous communications. The House of Lords hesitated to use the general regulation where there is a hold or mistake in the transmittal. For illustration, in Brinkibon Ltd V Stahag Stahl and Stahlwarenhandel GmbH [ 20 ] , the tribunal held that “ Some mistake or default at the receiver ‘s terminal which prevents reception at the clip contemplated and believed in by the transmitter. No cosmopolitan regulation can cover all such instances ; they must be resolved by mention to the purposes of the parties, by sound concern pattern and in some instances a judgement where the hazards should lie. ” The above decision has been taken in the US, particularly sing telex credences, because there may be some holds in having the credence, the telex appears to be treated in the same mode as regular mail. ( See by and large In rhenium Marin Motor Oil Inc. , 740 F. 2d 220,227-229 ( 3d Cir.1984 ) [ 21 ] . The last ground returns to the contention that using the general regulation to e-mail credences will perplex the state of affairs, as there are legion identifiable points along the communications web at which a communicating may be considered received by the addressee. It has showed that some observers assume that the electronic mail is considered to be received at the clip when it enters the offerer ‘s ISP, while others consider that even if the mail is non logged into, it is received at the clip the electronic mail entered the letter box of the offerer, Whenever this clip is, the indispensable point is finding the exact point of clip the offerer could entree the message and download it to his computing machine system. In decision, there is ever delay in bringing in the application of postal regulation. Therefore, every clip an offerer expects an credence by station, he will ever hold to wait for a certain period of clip. Therefore, hold in bringing still happens in electronic mail and the possibility of non-delivery, particularly if the transmitter does non cognize whether the message is received. Email is efficaciously instantaneous, but it is undependable that it overrules the fact that it is instantaneous. It can besides be said that, as the universe of engineering is bettering the holds in electronic mail will cut down and it will look to be more convenient any dependable therefore it can even be instantaneous manner of communicating. However, holding examined the footing of the development of the postal regulation and using the logical thinking above, the logical decision would be the postal regulation should be limited and non extended to cover electronic mail would look logical.