Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

correction procedure,157 as does the Uniform ElectronicTransactions Act.158 Although there are differences between thetwo formulations,159 they both arguably go beyond the moretraditional rules of mistake found in United States law or inEuropean contract law.160 The need for error correctionprocedures has been acknowledged in the European E-CommerceDirective, which mandates that each member state ensure thatservice providers make available “appropriate, effective andaccessible technical means allowing [the customer] to identify andcorrect input errors, prior to the placing of the order.”161 Thedirective, however, simply mandates the presence of errorcorrection procedures, but gives no remedy in the case ofuncorrected errors. UCITA, as well as the UETA, may helpinform the debate on these issues.162III. THE BIGGER PICTUREHow does the UCITA experience fit into the broaderframework of law making? In many respects, that experience (andits potential international component) raises the question of the157. UCITA § 214.158. UETA § 10.159. UCITA deals with consumers, the UETA with individuals. UCITA applies ifthere has been an error in an electronic message created by a consumer using aninformation processing system, whereas the UETA deals with both errors by theindividual and changes in the message occurring during transmission.160. See Ramberg, supra note 34.161. Council Directive 00/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on Certain Legal Aspects ofInformation Society Services, In Particular Electronic Commerce, In the InternationalMarket (Directive on Electronic Commerce), 2000 O.J. (L 178) 1, art. 11. The directivedoes allow, however, non-consumer parties to agree that such procedures not beprovided, and further exempts from the error correction procedures “contractsconcluded exclusively by exchange of electronic mail or by equivalent individualcommunications.” Thus, it appears to be geared primarily toward web-basedapplications facilitating the placement of orders. Query whether, in the case of amerchant buyer, the Directive would give effect to a provision in a click-wrapagreement on the site waiving any rights to error correction procedures.162. There are, of course, many other concepts in UCITA that merit study, such asits concept of electronic agents. See, e.g., Ian R. Kerr, Spirits in a Material World:Intelligent Agents as Intermediaries in Electronic Commerce, 22 Dalhousie L.J. 188(1999); Jean-Francois Lerouge, The Use of Electronic Agent Questioned underContractual Law: Suggested Solutions on a European and American Level, 18 J.Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 403 (1999) (noting the need to address issues raised byuse of electronic agents in electronic commerce, particularly in the areas of assent andmistake, but rejecting the UCITA approach and formulation); Ian R. Kerr, Providingfor Autonomous Electronic Devices in the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act, athttp://www.ulcc.ca/en/cls/index.cfm?sec=4&sub=4f.