14. Highlight What Terms Are Typically Presented In A Shrink-Wrap Agreement

The only British case in this area, Beta v Adobe[3], is from Scotland. Unfortunately, it does not give guidance on retractable packaging, as it relies on the principle of juice quaesitum tertio (rights conferred on third parties under a contract) to rule on the case. This principle is more favoured in Scottish law than in other jurisdictions. In Australia, there is no judicial authority for narrowed packaging. The next similar cases are the so-called “ticket” cases. Unfortunately, the Adobe ticket and beta v cases serve to highlight the total lack of clarity and development of the law in this area. Most legal agreements are often presented to users either by a clickwrap agreement or by a browsewrap agreement. This paper aims to study the growth and evolution of contract law on how technology and invention are presented and continues to present new questions and concepts for the access process. The creation of a telegram, a telex, a fax machine, a telephone, a computer and the internet has had an impact on how a contract can be “established”. Recent technological advances have resulted in shrinking licenses, and now click-wrap agreements raise other questions for legislators and judges. Traditional ideas about contract writing, supply and acceptance are being revised. Today, the challenge of legislators, judges and the law is to develop and adapt to this new technology, so that these new advances can develop and develop for the benefit of the world, both in fair legal principles and in certain legal principles. In Entores Ltd/Miles Far East Corporation,[24] Lord Denning found that the general rule of contracts was always to apply.

For the purposes of the court, the contract is concluded upon receipt of the reception. Therefore, the contract is concluded at the receiving place. The House of Lords confirmed this scheme in Brinkibon AG against Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH. Lord Wilberforce found, however, that there could be no universal rule for such cases. [26] This reasoning was confirmed in Australia by Rogers J. of the NSW Supreme Court of Mendelson-Zeller Co. against T-C Providores Pty Ltd. [27] Although an agreement may take many different forms, the question of exactly what the “communication” of an hypothesis represents has created a number of difficulties.