Il “clickwrap agreement” si è formato correttamente se la videata è sufficientemente chiara e bloccante nel procedere se non si leggono le Terms

Ecco la videata dell’app Uber per l’accettazione delle condizioni genrali, trea c ui la clausola arbitrale (queste liti son quasi sempre generate dal decidere l’accettazione o m,eo di querst’u,ti,a)

Eric Goldman ci notizia di MA Supreme Court 7 giugno 2024, Good v. Uber, SJC-13490.

La sintesi iniziale:

<<Relevant to this narrow inquiry, Uber presented its terms
of use to Good through its app in a manner that prevented Good
from continuing to use Uber’s services on his cellular telephone
unless Good both clicked a checkbox indicating that he had
“reviewed and agree[d]” to the terms and activated a button
labeled “Confirm,” further indicating his assent. This blocking
interface included a large graphic image of a clipboard holding
a document; near the bottom of the document was an “X” alongside
a graphic of a pencil poised as if to sign a legal instrument.
The interface was focused and uncluttered; it clearly alerted
Good multiple times, in prominent boldface text, that the
purpose of the blocking screen was to notify Good of Uber’s
terms of use. It encouraged Good to review those terms and
provided an identifiable hyperlink directly to the full text of
the terms of use document.
We conclude that these and other features of Uber’s
“clickwrap”2 contract formation process put Good on reasonable
notice of Uber’s terms of use, one of which was the agreement to
arbitrate disputes, like the present one, concerning the
personal injuries he suffered. Further concluding that Good’s
selection of the checkbox adjacent to the boldfaced text stating
that he “agree[d]” to the terms and his activation of the
“Confirm” button reasonably manifested his assent to the terms,
we reverse the order of the Superior Court judge denying Uber’s
motion to compel arbitration, and we remand for entry of an
order to submit the claims to arbitration>>.

 

L’ emoji thumbs up (pollice su) 👍 vale accettazione della proposta

la corte canadese del Saskatchewan, 8 giugno 2023, n° 2023 SKKB 116, SOUTH WEST TERMINAL LTD. v. ACHTER LAND & CATTLE LTD,   affronta il caso in oggetto (v. qui la pagina ministeriale ove il link e qui il linbk diretto al testio) .

Secondo la corte, in base alle circostranze il pollice su , di fronte alla richeristga del venditore di dare conferma della propostra (“Please confirm flax contract”) , non signicava solo attestazione di suo ricevimento ma anche sua accettazione.

<<[36] I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Chris okayed or approved the contract just like he had done before except this time he used a 👍 emoji. In my opinion, when considering all of the circumstances that meant approval of the flax contract and not simply that he had received the contract and was going to think about it. In my view a reasonable bystander knowing all of the background would come to the objective understanding that the parties had reached consensus ad item – a meeting of the minds – just like they had done on numerous other occasions>>.

e poi:

<[40] Counsel for Achter remonstrates that allowing a simple 👍 emoji to signify identity and acceptance would open up the flood gates to allow all sorts of cases coming forward asking for interpretations as to what various different emojis mean – for example what does a 👊 emoji mean or a 🤝 emoji mean, etc. Counsel argues the courts will be inundated with all kinds of cases if this court finds that the 👍 emoji can take the place of a signature. This appears to be a sort of public policy argument. I agree that this case is novel (at least in Saskatchewan) but nevertheless this Court cannot (nor should it) attempt to stem the tide of technology and common usage – this appears to be the new reality in Canadian society and courts will have to be ready to meet the new challenges that may arise from the use of emojis and the like.
[41] I acknowledge the defendant relies on Can-Am Farms Ltd. v Parkland Pulse Grain Co. Ltd., 2004 SKQB 58. However that case is distinguishable on the facts. In that case the grain buyer was waiting to hear back from a seller – nothing had been agreed upon and there was no consensus as idem. There was no contract signed. Justice Krueger held it was incumbent on the grain buyer to inquire with the seller subsequent to the parties’ telephone call to see what was going on. Here the 👍 emoji was Chris’s response to an offered flax contract. This is substantially different in my opinion.
[42] For the above reasons I find that the parties entered into a binding legal contract under the unique circumstances of this case. Therefore this issue does not require a trial>>.

Bisogna infatti distinguere bene le due questioni: – se un “pollice su” possa costituire accettazione nei contratti non formali: e la risposta è positiva (certo dipendendo dal contesto); – quale fosse l’oggetto della volontà adesiva espressa tramite pollice su : conferma di ricevimento della proposta oppure accettazione della stessa.

(notizia dal Guardian ove anche il link)