Private International Law and the Internet

Contracts over the internet occur more often than an internet user thinks. Availing of e-mail services, subscribing to online magazines, bidding online and downloading software all create contractual relations. In every contract, there is offer and acceptance; the contract is entered into where the offer was made. The internet enables a company to make a continual offer to enter into a contract to the entire world. The acceptor of the offer may be from any country in the world. Hence, the probability that conflicts of law may arise is dramatically increased by the internet. An e-mail service provided by a company in the United States may be availed of by a Filipino working as a caregiver in Canada. If, for example, the Filipino sues in Canada his US-based e-mail service provider because he assails that a provision in the “Terms of Service” he agreed to over the internet has a provision contrary to public policy, numerous issues with foreign elements in the case arise. First, the status, condition and legal capacity of the Filipino is governed by Philippine laws. Second, the Canadian court, according to Canadian laws, may not have jurisdiction over the case. Third, US public policy may differ from Philippine public policy.

A Treaty to Govern Internet Contracts

The internet is an avenue for international commerce; and where there is commerce, contracts arise. Since the world is getting “smaller” due to the internet, perhaps it would be prudent and wise for countries to enter into a treaty providing for guidelines on how to resolve problems and complications that arise due to international contracts easily entered into over the internet. Three justifications support this proposal: First, efficiency – it would be better if all the jurisdictions in the world are given guidance on what to do instead of them all being in the dark and deciding without solid bases for their ratios. Second, consistency – one of the pillars of all judicial systems is that they do not decide arbitrarily, hence courts follow precedence of doctrines; if intricate issues such as conflict of laws spread due to the internet, courts may not decide issues similarly, hence inequality and injustice would emerge in the bigger picture. Third, justice – the lack of official rules which mandate structure on how to resolve issues arising from contracts over the internet will deprive aggrieved parties the ability to know which avenues are the proper avenues to pursue justice.

Scarcity of actual disputes arising from internet contracts is not an excuse not to pursue the proposed act of prevention of problems. The world is growing more dependent on the internet; in time, there must be a formal structure to regulate internet relations; the best way to start this is to have an international agreement to regulate international civil relations – and contracts, above all else, are the civil relation most proliferating over the internet.