Research Topic In the light of modern technology, traditional contract principles need to be constantly reviewed and adapted to accommodate the E contracting regime. Singapore has been keeping pace by consistently updating the relevant areas of contract l

orld we live in is changing rapidly. Industrialisation, globalisation and technicalities speed up the growth of technology. The growth of the Internet has been exponential and the use of it has become a new norm. Today, the internet has an impact on all sorts of business and communications, spreading into the global market. As such, E-commerce emerged, along with E-transactions such as electronic contracts (E-Contract).

E-contract is defined as any kind of contract formed in the course of e-commerce by the interaction of two or more individuals with the facilitation of digital information record systems such as E-mail[1]. The Singapore Electronics Transactions Act (ETA) was first passed in the year 1998, providing a legal framework that governs nearly all digital services. Fast-forward to July 2010, the ETA was amended and re-enacted in order to be in line with the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts[2], and also to provide certainty for contracts formed electronically. 

The ETA falls under the Singapore Contract Law, which comprises 4 conditions to be met in order for a contract to be successfully formed. Firstly, there must be an offer of some sort of good or service. Secondly, the other party has to accept the offer. Thirdly, there must be consideration or a document under seal or deed. Lastly, there must be an intention to create legal relations. In situations where the above mentioned conditions are all met, the promises made during the formation process will be binding and enforceable. 

 

It must be noted that there are certain major legal developments in the ETA 2010 as compared to the previous version in 1998. These differences and developments will now be explained and compared in further detail.

· 1998 ETA （zixuan)   (compare by each area of development instead of 1998 v 2010)

. Implications

. Case studies before 2010

· 2010 ETA amendment (peiyi)

. Implications of updated clauses (might want to focus on clause 5, 9, 13, 14,15,16, part IV, part V)

(Note: Please work only on the yellow part)

Clause 8: 

· Amendment of Clause 8 suggests that a method should be deployed to recognise the signatory and the intention of the person.  The method should satisfy a “reliability test” appropriate to the circumstances of communication; or (ii) be proven in fact to fulfil the twin functions of “identification” and communication of “intention”. The formulation of the test is also flexible enough to cater for different levels of reliability ”as appropriate for the purpose the electronic record was generated or communicated, in light of all the circumstances”. The objective of this amendment is to increase measures to ascertain the validity of electronic signature. This signifies that in different situations, requirements for electronic signatures to be recognised are different. In the case of online trades, mere electronic signatures is not enough in determining the signatory while compared to simply agreeing to terms before using the website.

Clause 14:

· Section 14 of the ETA 2010 introduces a new rule that electronic communications proposing to conclude contracts, and addressed to the world at large (eg, posted on the Internet), are to be treated as invitations to make offers or invitations to treat, unless there is a clear indication that the person making the proposal intended for it to be capable of immediate acceptance. The objective is to protect the seller in online platforms from being legally responsible while making careless mistakes. On online shopping platforms, defendants who send the wrong information regarding its offer will not be responsible for the damages to the plaintiff as the offer is simply an invitation to treat and the plaintiffs’ response to the offer does not imply formation of the contract.

Clause 15: 

· Contracts formed through the use of automated message systems will not be denied validity or enforceability on the sole ground that no natural persons reviewed or intervened in the individual actions carried out by such systems or the resulting agreement. The objective is to protect sellers when sending out error messages in automated messages. It encourages the use of automated messages, but still need to use with caution.

Source: feature3.htm