Tilman (2022): A clause attributive de juridiction made via a hyperlink on a website is valid if there is a specific e-commerce usage and it is technically possible to save or print the terms.

Prepare for the DIPR Jurisprudence Test. Utilize flashcards, multiple-choice questions, and comprehensive explanations to enhance your understanding and readiness for the exam.

Multiple Choice

Tilman (2022): A clause attributive de juridiction made via a hyperlink on a website is valid if there is a specific e-commerce usage and it is technically possible to save or print the terms.

In electronic contracting, a clause that designates the jurisdiction for disputes can be binding when the terms containing it are presented in a way that users can access and retain. Linking to the terms via a hyperlink can satisfy this if there is a recognized e-commerce practice around obtaining assent and the user is given a clear opportunity to review the terms. The key point is assent and accessibility. If the website uses a specific e-commerce practice—such as presenting the terms and requiring the user to take a clear action (like clicking an “I agree” or continuing after being shown the terms)—then the user’s agreement to those terms, including the choice of forum, is effectively formed. The ability to save or print the terms provides a durable copy that can be referenced later, which helps establish that the terms were known and available at the time of agreement. This aligns with how many electronic contracts are treated: electronic forms of assent plus reasonably accessible terms can create a binding contract, without needing a traditional paper signature. It's not limited to consumer transactions; such online forum clauses can apply in business and other contexts as long as the e-commerce practice and access to the terms are proper. Hyperlinks themselves are not inherently invalid for forming an agreement, provided the above conditions are met. So, the statement is correct because it reflects how electronic terms, when part of a clear e-commerce process and capable of being saved or printed for future reference, can include a valid jurisdiction clause without requiring a paper signature, and without being restricted to consumer transactions.

In electronic contracting, a clause that designates the jurisdiction for disputes can be binding when the terms containing it are presented in a way that users can access and retain. Linking to the terms via a hyperlink can satisfy this if there is a recognized e-commerce practice around obtaining assent and the user is given a clear opportunity to review the terms.

The key point is assent and accessibility. If the website uses a specific e-commerce practice—such as presenting the terms and requiring the user to take a clear action (like clicking an “I agree” or continuing after being shown the terms)—then the user’s agreement to those terms, including the choice of forum, is effectively formed. The ability to save or print the terms provides a durable copy that can be referenced later, which helps establish that the terms were known and available at the time of agreement. This aligns with how many electronic contracts are treated: electronic forms of assent plus reasonably accessible terms can create a binding contract, without needing a traditional paper signature.

It's not limited to consumer transactions; such online forum clauses can apply in business and other contexts as long as the e-commerce practice and access to the terms are proper. Hyperlinks themselves are not inherently invalid for forming an agreement, provided the above conditions are met.

So, the statement is correct because it reflects how electronic terms, when part of a clear e-commerce process and capable of being saved or printed for future reference, can include a valid jurisdiction clause without requiring a paper signature, and without being restricted to consumer transactions.

More practice questions