Problem Question

The appeal case will deal with two primary issues. whether the IndyBooks Ltd. adhered to the doctrine of incorporation. and whether an e-mail notification can be taken as form of acceptance of a contract. Doctrine of Incorporation The doctrine of incorporation in English law Contract Law refers to the attaching of terms and conditions to such agreements in a manner that the court acknowledges them as legitimate. For terms to be viewed as incorporated the following three conditions must be met: a) the offerer of the contract must notify the other party of the terms prior to or in the course of entering into the contract. b) the terms and conditions must be attached to the document containing the contract. and c) the originator of the terms must act reasonably to ensure that the terms are within the reach of the other party. These rules are however not statutory1. In this case, IndyBooks Limited met the three conditions by notifying Ryan of the terms and conditions during the registration process. … She could read the terms and conditions or even download them but she ignored them. Ignoring terms of a contract is no defence to unawareness of the terms. Contractual document The second condition for incorporation of contract articles is that the terms must be written on a form that is planned to be the binding document. In this case the terms were part of the contract document that Ryan had filled and submitted online. Therefore, the defendant acted reasonably to meet this condition, and is likely to win in the appeal. In the United States, the rule of minimum contacts is used to decide most of online contract cases, especially those that are made by a party who is in the country and the other is outside of the country. In the case of Pres-Kap, Inc. v. System One, Direct Access, Inc., [1994] 636 So.3d 1351, for example, the court invoked the rule in arriving at the decision of the case2. In the case, Pres-Kap a party based in New York, chartered System One’s automated airline booking system with computer systems situated in Miami, Florida, but encountered problems with the transaction due to system failure. He then opted to not send the funds and System One filed claims for violation of the agreement in Florida. The court decided that a contractual agreement between two parties in which one party is out of the country does not meet the minimum contacts doctrine for personal jurisdiction. The local company that owned the server was also inadequately prepared to corroborate this. Otherwise, by granting the plaintiff’s prayers, the court predicted that future users of Internet-based services will jam courtrooms wherever particular servers were located. In light of the decision on Pres-Kap, Inc. v. System One, Direct Access, Inc., the court may rule in