International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 8, Issue 8 (August 2021), Pages: 103-112

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Interpreting digital licensing contracts between a metaphorical and functional direction: A comparative analytical study

 Author(s): Rania S. Azab *

 Affiliation(s):

 Department of Law, College of Business Administration, Northern Border University, Arar, Saudi Arabia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5769-7115

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2021.08.013

 Abstract:

This study seeks to clarify the importance of explaining the type of digital license contracts to see if it can continue subjecting them to the metaphorical direction that adopts the direction of applying the traditional rules to this types of contract or must it be subject to the functional direction that adopts the necessity of establishing independent legal rules in the theory of contracts in Egypt. The problem of the user not reading the contract terms is still there. Although consumers do not read the terms of digital licensing contracts, some jurisprudence in the US often insist that it must be the exchange of consent must take place that the offeree must see the terms and conditions before assenting in some sort of this contracts, this differs from the nature of digital licensing contracts and the way they are contracted. It is right that the consumers discover in some the types of contracts do not express the consent by the traditional way in the contract but are subject to specific instructions set by the site, due to the inability to read and understand the terms of the contract, but rather that in some types of digital licensing contracts the consumers are not aware to be a party to a contract according to the traditional concept of contract theory. Legal recognition is important by the Egyptian and Arab legislations in the role of technical and digital in regulations next to the contract and the law (functional direction) which can contribute to help the user to read the terms of use, we must make use of digital technology to fulfill the function of the contract, which aims to create obligations on both parties, businesses and the user. The following questions were analyzed: Is it possible an individual can enter into a contract without realizing it on the internet? Is the individual obligated to contractual terms that he did not read and understand? How can the provisions of the traditional contract be applied to digital licensing contracts? Then I concluded the necessity of enacting new legal rules that regulate digital licensing contracts within Egyptian legislation. 

 © 2021 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Wrap contracts, Standard terms, Clickwrap agreements, Browse wrap agreement, Sign-in-wrap, Consumer law

 Article History: Received 30 January 2021, Received in revised form 9 May 2021, Accepted 22 May 2021

 Acknowledgment 

The author gratefully acknowledges the approval and the support of this research study by Grant No.-7757 BA2018-3-9-F from the Deanship of Scientific Research at Northern Border University, Arar, KSA.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Azab RS (2021). Interpreting digital licensing contracts between a metaphorical and functional direction: A comparative analytical study. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 8(8): 103-112

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure 

 Tables

 No Table  

----------------------------------------------

 References (32)

  1. Andrade FCP, Novais P, and Neves (2004). Issues on intelligent electronic agents and legal relations. In: Cevenini C (Ed.), The Proceedings of the LEA 2004–Workshop on the Law of Electronic Agents: 81–94. Gedit Edizioni, Roma, Italy.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayres I and Schwartz A (2014). The no-reading problem in consumer contract law. Stanford Law Review, 66: 545-609.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnhizer DD (2005). Inequality of bargaining power. University of Colorado Law Review, 76: 139-241.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Becher SI and Zarsky TZ (2015). Online consumer contracts: No one reads, but does anyone care? Comments on Florencia Marotta-Wurgler’s studies. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, 12(1): 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrls/jlv005   [Google Scholar]
  5. Ben-Shahar O (2009). The myth of the ‘opportunity to read’ in contract law. European Review of Contract Law, 5(1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/ERCL.2009.1   [Google Scholar]
  6. Canino E (2016). The electronic sign-in-wrap contract: Issues of notice and assent, the average internet user standard, and unconscionability. UCDL Review, 50: 535-571.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Daiza H (2018). Wrap contracts: How they can work better for businesses and consumers. California Western Law Review, 54(1): 201-239.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Davis NJ (2007). Presumed assent: The judicial acceptance of clickwrap. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 22(1): 577-589.   [Google Scholar]
  9. EESL (2004). Egyptian Electronic Signature Law No. 25 of 2004. Available online at: https://lawyeregypt.net/  
  10. Gatt A (2002). Electronic commerce-click-wrap agreements: The enforceability of click-wrap agreements. Computer Law and Security Review, 18(6): 404-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-3649(02)01105-6   [Google Scholar]
  11. Gautrais V (2003). The colour of e-consent. University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal, 1: 189-212.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Grusa BL (1997). Contracting beyond copyright: PRoCD, INc. v. ZEIOENBERG. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 10(2): 353-367.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Hale W (2000). The origin of click-wrap: Software shrink-wrap. Available online at: https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/publications/the-origin-of-click-wrap-software-shrink-wrap-agreements-
  14. Hart DK (2014). Form and substance in Nancy Kim's wrap contracts. Southwestern Law Review, 44: 251-265.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Hayes DL (1993). Shrinkwrap license agreements: New light on a vexing problem. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 15(3): 653-670.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Kelley C (2013). Old school “wrap”: Exploring traditional contract doctrine and developing law that can serve to prevent websites from exploiting online consumer data. Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the King Scholar Program, Michigan State University College of Law, Lansing, USA. Available online at: https://www.law.msu.edu/king/2012-2013/Kelley.pdf
  17. Kim NS (2013). Wrap contracts: Foundations and ramifications. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim NS (2014a). The wrap contract morass. Southwestern Law Review, 44: 309-325. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336975.003.0005   [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim NS (2014b). Exploitation by wrap contracts—Click 'agree'. California Bar IP Journal, New Matter, 39(2): 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336975.003.0003   [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim NS (2016). Wrap contracting and the online environment: Causes and cures. In: Rothchild JA (Ed.), Research handbook on electronic commerce law: 11-34. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783479924.00010   [Google Scholar]
  21. Kunz CL, Ottaviani JE, Ziff ED, and Moringiello JM (2003). Browse-wrap agreements: Validity of implied assent in electronic form agreements. Business Lawyer, 59: 279-312.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Livingston JS (2011). Invasion contracts: The privacy implications of terms of use agreements in the online social media setting. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 21(3): 591-637.   [Google Scholar]
  23. Manap NA (2008). Enforceability of database licensing agreement: A comparatives study between Malaysia and the United States of America. Journal of Politics and Law, 1(3): 102-117. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v1n3p102   [Google Scholar]
  24. Marotta-Wurgler F (2009). Are “Pay Now, Terms Later” contracts worse for buyers? Evidence from software license agreements. The Journal of Legal Studies, 38(2): 309-343. https://doi.org/10.1086/596040   [Google Scholar]
  25. Mohammed KK (2014). Positive in contract compliance. AL-Mouhaqiq Al-Hilly Journal for Legal and Political Science, 6(1): 367-401.   [Google Scholar]
  26. Moringiello JM (2003). ‘Paper world’ Analogies to web site terms and conditions: Travel tickets and other similar forms. ABA Section of Business Law eSource, 2(2): 1-7.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Nimmer RT (1999). Images and contract law-What law applies to transactions in information? Houston Law Review, 36(1): 1-59.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Spooner SJ (2001). The validation of shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses by Virginia's uniform computer information transactions act. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 7(3): 27.   [Google Scholar]
  29. Sterkin SD (2004). Challenging adhesion contracts in California: A consumer's guide. Golden Gate UL Review, 34(2): 285-324.   [Google Scholar]
  30. Szwak DA (2002). Uniform computer information transactions Act [U.C.I.T.A.]: The consumer's perspective. Louisiana Law Review, 63(1): 27-51.   [Google Scholar]
  31. UNCITRAL LAW (1996). The uncitral law of electronic commerce issued in 1996. Available online at: https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-04970_ebook.pdf
  32. Vault (1988). Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, Ltd., 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988). Available online at: https://cyber.harvard.edu/ilaw/Contract/vault.htm