Click to view:
Stockholm Arbitration Report (SAR) - (Individual Back Volumes)
Stockholm Arbitration Report (SAR) - (Individual Back Issue)
Preview Page SAR 2003 - 1
1) Electronic commerce. Whether a contract might be amended – and
an arbitration clause included – through the posting of a website notice.
2) Whether the arbitration agreement was invalid because it was
1) The amending provision in the company’s internet service
agreements oblige customers to check relevant parts of the website
periodically in order to determine whether amendments had been made.
The company had provided its customers with sufficient notice of the
amendments and the customers had accepted the amended agreement by
continuing to use the service. Notices of amendments need not be posted
on the website’s homepage.
2) The arbitration clause was not unconscionable since (i) the company
did not use its bargaining power to take advantage of its customer, and (ii) it
was not sufficiently divergent from standards of commercial morality so as
to be improvident.
Claimants: Stefan Kanitz, Hugh Wallis, Richard Pearce, James Carnegie
and John R. Wilson (Canada)
Respondent: Rogers Cable Inc. (Canada)
Place of court proceedings:
The Canadian Arbitration Act and Class Proceedings Act