A Reflection on Contract Formation in an Electronic Commercial Transaction in Cameroon
Keywords:
contract, e-commerce, offer, acceptance, electronic signature, electronic writing,Abstract
This research paper reflects on contract formation in an electronic commercial transaction in Cameroon. The main aim is to critically examine how Cameroonian law treats contracts that are formed electronically, looking at aspects of offer, acceptance and the requirements of writing and signature, which are peculiar with an e-commerce contract. Fundamentally, contracts are voluntary exchanges and as such maximum use should be given to party freedom of contract and party autonomy. The methodology employed in this article is purely doctrinal which is based on both primary and secondary data. The paper concludes with some robust recommendations which if effectively implemented will go a long way to enhance commercial transactions in Cameroon.
References
1. In the case of Goldblatt v. Fremantle (1920) AD 123, 128, Innes CJ held thus: ―Subject to certain exceptions, mostly statutory, any contract may be verbally entered into; writing is not essential to contractual validity.‖ Culled from Christie R.H., The Law of Contract in South Africa (2006) 5th ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 105.
2. Reid Bros (SA) Ltd v Fischer Bearings Co. Ltd (1943) AD 232 241. NJCSL (2020) 1 2–24 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 21
3. Such as Offer, Acceptance, Consideration and Intention to create Legal Obligations. See http://www.outlaw.com/page -396, accessed 28 March 2013.
4. Such as contracts regarding alienation of land; suretyship contracts; credit agreements amongst others.
5. Section 1 of the Natal Law 12 of 1884, which w as repealed and replaced by Section 1 of Act 68 of 1957, and then repealed and replaced by Act 71 of 1969 and then Section 2(1) of the Act 68 of 1981 provides thus: “No alienation of land after the commencement of this section shall be of any force or effe ct unless it is contained in a deed of alienation signed by parties thereto or by their agents acting on their written authority.”
6. Article 9(2), E-commerce Directive.
7. UN/CEFACT. Recommendation No. 31. Geneva, May 2000, http://www.unece. org/leginstr/cover.html.
8. ICC Electronic Commerce Project (ECP). http://www.iccwbo.org/.
9. Law no.2010/021 of 21 December 2010.
10. Article 11 (3).
11. Article 1 of the UNCITRAL Model Law of 1996 on electronic commerce deals with general concepts applicable to any kind of information in the form of a data message used in commercial activities. Rather than interpret contractual issues specifically, there is a need for broad interpretation so as to include matters arising from all relationships involving commercial transactions whether contractual or not.
12. Guenter Heinz Treitel, (1999) ‘The Law of Contract’ 10th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London.
13. Stover v Manchester City Council [1974] 1 WLR 1403.
14. Article 2/3 (1) de l’Avant projet d’Acte uniforme sur le droit des contrats.
15. Alinéa 2 de l’article 11 UAGCL.
16. CISG Advisory Council.
17. Le Groupe de Travail chargé de l’édition 2004 des Principes d’Unidroit cite en exemple l’article 15(2) de la Loi type de la CNUDCI sur le commerce électronique de 1996.
18. CISG-AC opinion 2003.
19. Sellamvip.com.
20. CISG-AC opinion, 2003.
21. David Noguero « L’acceptation dans le contrat électronique » in Le contrat électronique, au cœur du commerce électronique – le droit de la distribution, droit commun ou droit spécial, études réunies par Jean Claude Hallouin et Hervé causse, Université de Poitiers, coll. de la Faculté de Droit, LGDJ, p.50.
22. Article 213 UAGCL.
23. CISG Advisory Council.
24. Article 214 : « [u]ne réponse qui tend à être une acceptation d’une offre mais qui contient des éléments complémentaires ou différents n’altérant pas substantiellement les termes de l’offre constitue une acceptation. Une réponse qui tend à être l’acceptation d’une offre, mais qui contient des additions, des limitations ou autres modifications doit être considérée comme un rejet de l’offre, et constitue une contre offre ». Les commentateurs de l’Acte uniforme précisent que « l’acceptation n’est pas pure et simple, elle devient une contre proposition non susceptible de former un contrat. Ce texte n’indique pas quelles altérations revêtent le caractère substantiel (article 31 de la Convention de Vienne).
25. CISG Advisory Council.
26. Article 215 : « [l]e délai d’acceptation fixé par l’auteur de l’offre dans un télégramme ou une lettre commence à courir du jour de l’émission de l’offre, le cachet des Services p ostaux faisant foi. Le délai d’acceptation que l’auteur de l’offre fixe par téléphone, par télex, par télécopie ou par tout autre moyen de communication instantané commence à courir au moment où l’offre parvient au destinataire ». Ces observations valent aussi pour l’article 2/8 de l’Avant projet d’Acte uniforme sur le droit des contrats : article 2/8 : « [l]e délai d'acceptation fixé par l'auteur de l'offre commence à courir au moment où l'offre est expédiée. La date indiquée dans l'offre est présumée être celle de l’expédition, à moins que les circonstances n’indiquent le contraire ». NJCSL (2020) 1 2–24 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 22
27. CISG Advisory Council.
28. Article 2/6 de l’Avant projet d’Acte uniforme sur le droit des contrats. Selon les commentaires 1 des Principes d’Unidroit sur l’article 2.1.6: « [p]our qu’il y ait acceptation, le destinataire doit indiquer d'une façon ou d'une autre son “acquiescement” à l'offre. Le seul accusé de réception de l'offre, ou l'expression d'un intérêt à son égard, n'est pas suffisant. En outre, l'acquiescement doit être sans condition, c’est -à dire qu’il ne peut dépendre d'autres mesures à prendre par l'auteur de l'offre (par exemple “Notre acceptation est subordonnée à votre approbation finale”) ou le destinataire (par exemple “Nous acceptons par la présente les cl auses du contrat telles qu'elles figurent dans votre convention et nous nous engageons à soumettre le contrat à notre conseil d'administration pour approbation dans les deux semaines à venir”). Enfin, la prétendue acceptation ne doit contenir aucune modifi cation des termes de l'offre ou au moins aucune qui ne les altère substantiellement […] ».
29. Article 2/7.
30. Commentaires et illustrations sur l’article 2.1.7 des Principes d’Unidroit.
31. Mouhamadou Sanni.Yaya. (2011) “Le Droit de l’OHADA face au commerce électronique”, Thèse de doctorat effectuée en cotutelle, Faculté des études supérieures de l’Université de Montréal, Faculté Jean Monnet de droit, d’économie et de gestion de l’Université de Paris -Sud 11 p. 105.
32. Donnie Kidd, Jr. and William.Daughtrey, (2000) “Adapting Contract Law to Accommodate Electronic Contracts: Overview and Suggestions”, Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 26 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 215.
33. See e.g. Department of Trans. v. Norris ,474 St. 2d 216, 218 (Ga. Ct App.1996), revised on other ground , 486 SE 2d 826 (Ga.1997)(holding that a facsimile transmission was not a “Writing” that satisfied the Statutes of Frauds). The Georgia Court of Appeal noted that “beeps and chirps along the telephone line is not a writing, in the conventional sense or a hard copy in the technical vernacular…”
34. Section 201 requires that a contract lasting more than one year or having a value of $5.000 or more is not enforceable absent a record authenticated by the party to be charged. See UCITA 201(a)(1)(1999). The record must indicate that a contract was made and could reasonably identify the copy or subject matters to which the record itself refers.
35. Also see the definition of ‘written’ in the earlier Uniform Act on General Commercial Law 1997, Artic le 209 ‘writing the scope of this book, the word ‘written’ shall mean any communication using a written medium, including the telegram, telex, or telefax’. Note further Marcel Fontaine, ‘‘OHADA Uniform Act on Contract Law, Explanatory Notes to the preliminary Draft’’ < http: www.unidroit.orgeenglish/legalcooperatio n/OHADA%20act-e.pdf> accessed 2 November 2013, para 59. Another provision of the Uniform Act Relating to General Commercial Law that stands the need of review is Article 209, which gives a rather a rchaic definition of the word ‘writing’, mentioning telex and telegram, with a daring reference to telefax. This wording will clearly have to give way to the far more modern definition contained in Article 1/10 of the preliminary draft.
36. This draft was prep ared by Professor Marcel Fontaine, a member of the UNIDRIOT working Group for the preparation of the UNIDROIT Principles, premised on a request for assistance made by the OHADA Council of Ministers. The UNIDROIT Secretariat sent the parliamentary draft of the Act to the OHADA Secretariat in February 2005, together with an explanatory note also prepared by Professor Fontaine. See Marcel Fontaine, “OHADA Uniform Act on contract Law: Preliminary Draft” accessed 02 November 2013.
37. Djieufack Roland and Fon Fieldings, (2014) “Harmonization of Business Law NJCSL (2020) 1 2–24 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 23 in Africa (OHADA) and E -commerce Transactions: The Implications for Cameroon”, African Journal of Social Sciences, Unique Printers Printing and Publishing House Bamenda, Vol. 5, No.1.
38. Tchabo Sontang, (2014), « La Réglementation du commerce électronique dans la CEMAC, Contribution a l’émergence d’un Marché Commun Numérique », Ph.D Thesis, University of Dschang, p.357.
39. Caprioli Eric, (2008) « Que veut dire neutralité technologique, du concept au principe générale du droit », communication a la conférence « Droit du commerce électronique, un droit différent ? » Université du Montréal.
40. A 1997 court ruling by a Georgia Appellate court has contributed to this uncertainty. In Georgia Dept. of Transportation v. Norris, 1997. 474 S.E.2d 216 (Ga. App. 1996), reviewed on other grounds, 486 S.E.Zd 826 (Ga.) the court held that filing a notice by fax did not satisfy a requirement that notice be in writing because the tr ansmission of ―beeps and chirps‖ along a telephone line is not writing in the customary sense of the term.
41. [1987] 3 Nigeria Weekly Law Reports 84 (part 59).
42. [2001] 16 NWLR 510 (part 740).
43. Sellamvip.com.
44. Caprioli Eric and SORIEUL Renaud, (1997) « Le commerce international électronique: vers l’émergence de règles juridiques transnationales », Journal de Droit International 2-323.
45. See Article 10 of Law No. 2010/021 of 21 December 2010 on Electronic Commerce (Sale of Land, Tenement, Contracts which the law requires the intervention of the courts or public authorities, Contracts from family law and succession law issues).
46. Article 11 (1) imposes through electronic means should be accompanied by contractual conditions or general permitting the traceability of contract intended. Obligation of information is reiterated in Article 11 (2).
47. Davidson Alan, (2009) The Law of Electronic Commerce, Cambridge University Press, p 37.
48. Article 22 (2), of Prime Ministerial Decree no.2011/1521 fixing the modalities for the application of Law No. 2010/021 of 21 December 2010.
49. Comfort Fuah Kwanga) (2018) “Electronic Commerce in Cameroon: An Appraisal of legal Issues and Challenges”, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR -JHSS), Volume 23, Issue 6, Ver. 3 pp. 41 – 53.
50. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/signature accessed 03 June 2015.
51. Ian Lloyd, (1997) “Legal Barriers t o Electronic Contracts: Formal Requirements and Digital Signatures”, Law & the Internet regulating cyberspace, edited by Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde, ‘HART’ publishing, Oxford, 140.
52. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/signature accessed 03 June 2015.
53. Goodman v. Eban (J) LTD; CA 1954 [1954] 1 All ER 763.
54. Ian (L.) supra at 140-141.
55. Amadou Monkaree, Lecture Notes on New Information Technology Law and Electronic Commerce, Masters I, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Univer sity of Dschang 2013/2014, unpublished.
56. Section 2 para 20. This definition is also provided for by Section 4(68) of Law No. 2010/012 of 21 December 2010 relating to cyber security and criminality in Cameroon.
57. Section 2 para 19.
58. The Model Law was approved by the UNCITRAL Working Group on Electronic Commerce at its Thirty-Seventh Session, held at Vienna from 18 to 29 September 2000. It took effect in 2001.
59. Jonathan Hart, “Law of the web, a field to guide to internet”, Publishing 2003 edition, Bradford Publis hing Company, Denver, Colorado, 203.
60. A concise, step -by-step explanation of how digital signature technology works is available in James Hill, Lock and Load, BUS L. TODAY, Nov - Dec 1998, at 8. See also Charles (R.M.), “Proof of Who, NJCSL (2020) 1 2–24 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 24 What and When in Electr onic Commerce Under the Digital Signature Guidelines”, 129, 135 -37 (PLI Pat., Copyrights, Trademarks, & Literacy Prop. Course Handbook Series No G0 -000E 1998) (explanation and examples of how digital signature technology works); Don Clark, Overcoming the H urdles; Virtual Safety, WALL ST.J; June 1996 at R21 (brief explanation of public-key encryption).
61. Section 21 of Law No. 2010/012 of 21 December 2010 relating to cyber security and criminality in Cameroon.
62. Section 17 of Law No. 2010/012 of 21 December 2010 relating to cyber security and criminality in Cameroon.
63. Gatsi Jean., (2008) ʺ Pratique des baux commerciaux dans l’espace OHADA ʺ, 2eme edition, PUL, p. 206.
64. See Rome Convention dealing with the law applicable to contractual obligations.
65. Official Guide of the Enactment of UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce.
66. Article 35 (1) (2), Law no.2010/021 of 21 December 2010.
67. Catchpole James, (2001) “The Regulation of Electronic Commerce: A Comparative Analysis of the Issues Surrounding th e Principles of Establishment”, International Technology, Vol. 9, No.1, Spring pp 1 – 20.
68. Nwabueze, Caroline Joelle. (2017). “Reflections on legal uncertainties for e - commerce transactions in Cameroon.” The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), 20, p. 171 – 180. Cite this Article Ngwa Shu Princewill . A Reflection on Contract Formation in an Electronic Commercial Transaction in Cameroon 2020; 3(2): 12–24p.
