a model of dispute resolution for the internet in .NET Encoder code 128 barcode in .NET a model of dispute resolution for the internet

a model of dispute resolution for the internet using barcode encoder for none control to generate, create none image in none applications. QR Code ISO speicification in such cases may none for none be quicker, possibly cheaper and more convenient to use32 (especially if the seller has limited nancial means or is located in a different jurisdiction than the ISP or in a jurisdiction without an ef cient court system),33 and effective dispute resolution can enhance the platform s commercial reputation. Most of the examples discussed in 334 neatly illustrate the bene ts and the limitations of contractually mandated dispute resolution clauses. The examples in 3 In 3,35 six examples have been used to illustrate the cross-border nature of some Internet disputes and the dif culties of redress where this is coupled with a power imbalance between the parties.

In example 1,36 if the B2B E-commerce platform made online arbitration compulsory for all its members, with the threat of expulsion for members who do not participate in online arbitration or who do not comply with an award, this would make redress more likely for the trader concerned. In example 2,37 it is likely that the consumer would obtain a credit-card chargeback. However, if this is not available, then if the travel company had subscribed to a trustmark scheme providing for independent redress, the consumer would be more likely to obtain redress, but this presupposes that consumers are aware of trustmarks and therefore only contract with subscribing businesses in the rst place.

Example 338 is an illustration for the proposition that online arbitration should be binding on the corporate entity in order to avoid the more. 32 33. 34 36. See the discussio n in 5.5 on the bene ts of ODR/online arbitration. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see J.

H rnle, Internet Service Provider o Liability Let s Not Play Piggy in the Middle (2002) 7(3) Communications Law 85 8, arguing that there should be a put back provision combined with online arbitration. 35 See 3.3.

See 3.3. A sole trader in Nigeria concludes a contract with a company manufacturing locally in China and trading internationally for some widgets through a B2B E-commerce trading platform.

The widgets are defective and the sole trader seeks redress for breach of contract. A consumer in Chile enters into a contract with a large US travel company for a cruise holiday through an E-commerce website. However, the cruise is cancelled at the last minute and the deposit of US $2,000 has not been refunded.

The consumer seeks a refund of the deposit paid. The owner of a bricks and mortar shop located in Dublin (sole trader) has named her shop Crate & Barrel , and she also operates a website connected to her shop under the domain www.crateandbarrel.

biz. A large US company running an extensive chain of stores present in most states of the United States claims infringement of their US federal trademark in the same name, and commences infringement proceedings against the unincorporated Irish trader before a US district court. The owner cannot afford litigation in the United States,.

cross-border internet dispute resolution powerful party el ecting to litigate in a local court before which the individual is not able to defend themselves. The procedure of the UDRP should be made fairer and be binding on corporate entities.39 In example 4,40 the Egyptian individual could use online arbitration to obtain redress against the US news corporation if the online news platform had obliged all persons posting on the website to agree to online arbitration.

Again, this shows the importance of online operators binding users to online arbitration. However, not all Internet disputes can be covered by contractually mandated online arbitration, especially where there is no trusted third party involved. In example 5,41 the dispute is not covered by a contractually mandated, online arbitration scheme, as the dispute does not arise from a platform, but from the content of a private individual s own website.

Likewise, in example 6,42 since there is no trusted party, there is no possibility for redress by online arbitration. These last two examples show the limitation of the contractually mandated solution. For such disputes, something else is needed over and above contractually mandated online arbitration.

Copyright © . All rights reserved.