The advent of the Internet and the overall digitalization of the 21st century have significantly changed the methods and processes of the purchase but not its essence. The introduction of modern technologies also affected the legislative sphere, which had to be adapted to new economic measures. That is why a competent lawyer needs to know which laws affect relatively new market transactions and procedures. The purpose of this work is to prove that the electronic contract between Company X and Windows Bright is subject to the Statute of Frauds and meets its requirements.
One of the fundamental theses is that Company X and Windows Bright electronic contract is subject to the Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Frauds. According to the Legal Information Institute (n.d.), it is “a statute requiring certain contracts to be in writing and signed by the parties bound by the contract” (para. 1) It can be proven by the Federal and State Electronic Transactions Laws on Electronic Signatures and Online Contracts. These laws equalize most electronic contracts with traditional written agreements within the law framework. O’Connell (n.d.) notes that “also, making an online purchase involves a form of e-contract” (para. 7). It is also important to note that the Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Frauds covers not the contract itself but a particular memorandum or note which implies a logical sequence in the form of an agreement (“Chapter 13 Form and meaning,” n.d.). Therefore, being a contract from a formal and terminological point of view, the legislative mechanisms of the Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Frauds apply to it.
Moreover, the service that Company X buys is not only goods but also performance; in other words, a specific act of action that is a requirement of the transaction. It means that legislative mechanisms can apply to such goods and services. Therefore, Company X may take measures according to the circumstances of the contract, such as discharge, or actions agreed upon with the Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Frauds (USLegal, n.d.). It is another argument in favor of the fact that the electronic contract is the subject of this legislative act.
The author of this work believes that the electronic internet contract between Company X and Windows Bright satisfies the “writing” requirements for the Statute of Frauds. As it was mentioned above, the electronic contract and the digital operation itself are a de jure contract within the framework of the Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Frauds. The deal also contains two merchants, namely Company X, the buyer, and Bright Windows, which are the seller. The goods are a Shiny Lite window cleaning solution at $ 200 per case and a further act of cleaning. Therefore, according to the interpretation of the Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Frauds, it is a commercial unit that is “treated in use or the relevant market as a single whole” (Legal Information Institute, n.d., para. 6). It is also important to note that the contract contains a condition, process, and parameter of the purchase.
The author of this work proposes two theses that the electronic contract may be the subject of the Statute of Frauds and corresponds to its “writing” norms. The first statement has been proven through legislation such as the Federal and State Electronic Transactions Laws and the concept of performance in law. The second thesis was confirmed by comparing General Background and the Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Frauds and the methodology used in paragraph A.
References
Chapter 13 Form and meaning. (n.d.). Web.
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Statute of frauds. Web.
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). § 2-105. Definitions: Transferability; “goods”; “future” goods; “lot”; “commercial unit”. Web.
O’Connell, A. (n.d.). Electronic signatures and online contracts. Web.
USLegal. (n.d.). Discharge of a contract law and legal definition. Web.