17
2.3.7
Individuals may also use the principles of the Model Law to draft
contracts to overcome legal obstacles to the increased use of ecommerce. The Model Law may also help to remedy disadvantages that
stem from the fact that inadequate legislation at the national level can
create barriers to international trade, a significant amount of which is
carried out using modern communication techniques. The Model Law is
not intended to cover every aspect of electronic commerce, but is likely
to be supplemented by procedural regulations. The intention is, however,
that each enacting state pay particular attention to the need to maintain a
flexible approach in a rapidly changing technological environment.
2.3.8
Two examples of the extension of the principles of the UNCITRAL
Model Law into other model legislation can be found in the Uniform
Law Conference of Canada: Uniform Electronic Commerce Act4 and the
U.S. Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.5 The U.S Uniform Act,
expanding on the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code, applies to business,
commercial or governmental transactions. Signatures and records that
are not part of a transaction are not covered by the U.S. Uniform Act.
2.3.9
On the other hand, a number of jurisdictions (e.g., Australia and New
Zealand) saw no reason to limit their legislation to commercial
transactions. Since the general intent is to be enabling and since
generally people are not required to use electronic communications, the
policy makers saw no reason why the legislation should not be extended
to all transactions.
2.3.10 The basic tenet of the model laws is that a transaction or a contract is not
invalid solely by virtue of the fact that it is electronic.6 Similarly, a
signature or record may not be denied legal effect or enforceability
solely because it is electronic. The Canadian Uniform Act sets out basic
equivalence rules (examples above) and states that they apply when the
people involved in a transaction agree, explicitly or implicitly, to use
electronic documents. People are not required to use electronic
communication, but when they choose to, the legal effectiveness of
electronic transactions should not be in doubt. General equivalency rules
avoid the need to amend all statutes that state or imply a particular
medium of communication.
2.3.11 In some legislation, governments are allowed to set rules for incoming
4
www.law.ualberta.ca/alri/ulc/current/euecafa.htm
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws;
www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/ueta99.htm
6
Note that other factors may invalidate, for example, a contract. Thus a contract entered under
duress or where there is no agreement on material issues is not a valid contract; this is a matter
of contract law and has nothing to do with the electronic or non-electronic form of the contract.
5