THE L AW OF AGENCY

& ELEMENTS OF THE

L AW OF E-COMMERCE

U N I T 8 P R E S E N TAT I O N
WELCOME TO UNIT 8
OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION
This presentation covers the law of agency and the elements of the law of E-
commerce:

(1) The law of agency

(2) Elements of the law of e-commerce
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
THE LAW OF AGENCY

• Outline the rights and duties of an agent.

AGENCY L AW
DEFINITION OF AGENCY LAW, AGENT
& PRINCIPAL
• Agency Law – The large body of common law that governs agency; a mixture of contract law
and tort law.
• An agent is a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings
with third persons.
• The person for whom such acts are done or who is represented is called the Principal.
• An Agent is a person who has authority, either express or implied, to act for a
Principal with the general object of bringing the Principal into legal relations with a
Third Party” (Crucitti 2015, p. 324).
• The contract which creates the relationship of principal and agent is called an agency.
CONTRACT LAW VERSUS LAW OF AGENCY
C ON TRACT L AW L AW OF AG ENC Y
• In Units 3 & 4, we looked at the concept • The law of agency however is a deviation of
of privity of contract. the privity rule of contract law
• Privity of contract basically states that • The deviation is that the law of agency allows an
rights and obligations under a contract agent who may not necessarily be directly
are restricted only to those persons involved in the contract to bind the principal.
directly involved in contract formation. • So parties who do not legally have such an
• Only parties who have legally recognized interest in the subject matter of the contract may
interest in the subject of the contract are to not be bound by it.
be bound by it.
ESSENTIALS AND LEGAL RULES
1. There should be an agreement between the Principal and the agent: Agreement may
be = Express OR Implied
2. The agent must act in the representative capacity.
3. The Principal must be competent to contract.
4. The agent need not be competent to contract.
5. The consideration is not necessary.
GENERAL RULES OF AGENCY
1. Whatever a person can lawfully do himself Or herself, he Or she may
also do the same through an agent.
2. He who acts through another, does by himself Or herself.
3. Distinction between agent and servant.
4. Who may employ an agent ?
Any person who is of the age of majority according to the law to
which he or she is
subject and who is of sound mind, may employ an agent.
5. Who may be an agent ?
As between the Principal and third persons, any person may become an
agent.
AGENT VERSUS SERVANT
AGENT SERVANT
• He or she has the authority to create • He or she ordinarily has no such authority.
commercial relationships between the • He or she ordinarily works for one master
Principal and the third party at a time.
• He or she may work for several Principals at a • He or she usually get salary or wages.
time.
• He or she usually get commission.
TEST OF AGENCY
• The question as to whether a particular person is an agent can be verified by finding out if his
or her acts bind the Principal or not.

• Keppel v Wheeler (1927) and Chaudry v Prabakar (1988) are illustrative of the importance of
competence and skill in the agency relationship.
CREATION AND
T YPES OF
AGENCY
CREATION OF AGENCY
1. Agency by Express Agreement

2. Agency by Implied Agreement:

(a) Agency by estoppel
(b) Agency by holding out
(c ) Agency by necessity

3. Agency by Ratification
AGENCY BY EXPRESS AGREEMENT
• Express agreement or express appointment can be by deed, in writing or orally.
• Whether oral or written, agency by express agreement is subject to the ordinary rules
of contract law.
• If done by deed, the agent is normally conferred a power of attorney which is a signed
document, witnessed in a special way, under seal, conferred by the Principal on someone
who he wishes to act on his behalf to carry out his business or personal affairs.
• It is important that the agent does not exceed the authority granted to him or to her
under express agreement.
• The Principal will only be bound if the agent acts within the scope of the authority
conferred.
• If the agent acts outside of this scope, only through ratification will the Principal be
bound.
AGENCY BY IMPLIED AGREEMENT
• Some agencies are created due to the conduct of the parties or the course of dealings
between the parties or the situation of a particular case.
• Usually, these relationships arise from the conduct of the parties or in relation to the
surrounding circumstances.
• Agencies by an implied agreement include:
(1) Agency by estoppel
(2) Agency by holding out
(3) Agency by necessity
AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL
• Where a person by his words or conduct has wilfully led another to believe that certain set
of circumstances or facts exist, and the other person has acted on that belief, he or she is
estopped from denying the truth of such statements although such a state of things did not
in fact exist.
• Agency by estoppel occurs in situations where the agent does not have actual
authority.
• During agency by estoppel, the Principal gives the impression that the agent has
authority.
• When this situation occurs, the Principal is estopped or prevented from denying the
existence of the agency relationship. The Principal will therefore be held to account
for any contracts incurred on his behalf by the agent.
AGENCY BY HOLDING OUT

• More than estoppel – positive or affirmative conduct of the Principal is required

 AGENCY BY NECESSITY
• Due to extraordinary circumstances, person may be compelled to act without requiring the
consent or authority
• Agency can also be created by necessity when there is a situation where the principal’s
interests may be in jeopardy and it is not possible to communicate with the principal.
• With modern communication, creation of such agencies are becoming less important.
CONDITIONS FOR AGENCY BY
NECESSITY
1. There must be a real emergency to act on behalf of the Principal.
2. The agent must act in good faith and in the interests of the principal.
3. It was impossible for the agent to receive instructions from the principal.
4. The action undertaken by the agent must be reasonable and practicable course of action.
CASES OF AGENCY BY NECESSITY
1. Where the agent exceeds his authority bonafide in an emergency
2. Where the carrier of goods acting as a bailee, does anything to protect or preserve the
goods.
3. Where husband improperly leaves his wife without providing proper means for her
sustenance.
Great Northern Railway Co v Swaffield [1874]: is a seminal case in the area of agency
by necessity. In this case, there was an agency of necessity because the plaintiff had no choice
but to arrange for the proper care of the house to stay at a stable since when the horse was
delivered 4 months prior, no one collected the horse.
AGENCY BY RATIFICATION
• A person does some acts on behalf of another person without his or her knowledge or
authority.
• Agency by Ratification = also known as Ex- Post Facto Agency (that is, Agency arising after the
event).
• In Agency by Ratification, the Principal approves the actions of the agent even though they
acted without authority.
• However, it is essential for the agent to make full disclosure to the Principal before
Ratification.
Bolton Partners v Lambert (1889): is a good case of a company Board of Directors ratifying an
agent’s actions on behalf of the Principal.
Keighly Maxstead & Company v Durant (1901): illustrates a situation involving the non-ratification
of a contract made by an agent who had failed to disclose the fact that he was acting as an agent on
the behalf of the Principal.
CONDITIONS FOR VALID
AGENCY BY RATIFICATION
1. The agent must name or identify the principal and show that he is acting on behalf of
the principal. Failure to do so may lead the other contracting party to believe that
they are contracting with the principal rather than with the agent.
2. The Principal must be competent to contract and in existence at the time of the contract by
the agent.
3. There should be an act capable of Ratification.
4. The Principal must have full knowledge of the material facts.
5. Whole transactions must be Ratified.
6. Within a reasonable time.
7. Ratification must not injure a third party.
8. The contract must not be void since void contracts cannot be ratified.
T YPES OF
AGENCY
KINDS OF AGENTS (1)
1. From the point of view of the extent of their authority:

(a) General Agent – is one employed to do all the acts connected with a particular business or
employment. Eg. Manager of a firm.

(b) Special Agent – employed to do some particular act or represent his or her Principal in some
particular transaction. Eg: agent employed to sell a motor car.

(c ) Universal Agent – whose authority is unlimited. He or she enjoys extensive powers to

transact every kind of business on behalf of the Principal.
KINDS OF AGENTS (2)
II. From the point of view of the nature of work performed by them:

Mercantile Agent
- An agent dealing in the buying and selling of the goods.

- An agent who has the authority either to sell the goods, or to consign the goods for the
purpose of sale, or to buy the goods or to raise the money on the security of the goods on
behalf of the Principal.
KINDS OF AGENTS (3)
• Types of Mercantile Agents
1. Auctioneers: These are agents whose business is to sell goods or other property by
auction, that is, by open sale. The authority vested in him or her is to sell the goods
only.
2. Factors: A factor is a mercantile agent who is entrusted with possession of goods
for the purpose of sale; factors sell in his or her own name; factors have general lien;
factors cannot barter ; and factors cannot delegate.
3. Commission agent: Buys and sells and receives commission. He or she is not liable
for 3rd party; for particular lien: he or she may or may not have possession.
KINDS OF AGENTS (4)
• Types of Mercantile Agents Con’t

1. Brokers: A broker is an agent ho is appointed with the authority to negotiate and make
contracts for the sale or purchase on behalf of the Principal with the third person; the
broker is not given possession and the broker has no authority in his own name.

2. Del credere agents (a.k.a. Believing/Credit Agents) : Del credere agent constitutes an
exception to the general rule of agents. He or she is a mercantile agent who credit
guarantees that a buyer is trustworthy and in case the buyer defaults, compensates the
Principal (the seller). Del credere agents are also mercantile agents who on the payment of
some extra commission guarantees the performance of the contract by the third person. To
cover such risks, the del credere agents charge higher than normal commission rates.
KINDS OF AGENTS (5)
• Non – Mercantile Agents: Do not usually deal in the buying or selling of the goods. The
include insurance agents, counsels or advocates, wife etc.
Wife as an Agent
• Living together and looking for necessaries
Husband is not Liable
• Expressly forbidden credit
• Not necessary
• Given money
• Trader is told expressly
Note : If they live apart: -
(a) No fault of wife, liable to pay for her maintenance OR (b) under No justifiable
circumstances, she is NOT her Husband’s agent.
DUTIES & RIGHTS
OF THE
P R I N C I PA L A N D
AGENT
GENERAL DUTIES OF AN AGENT
1. Duty to follow the instructions of the Principal.
2. Duty to carry out the work with care and skill.
3. Duty to render accounts to the Principal.
4. Duty to communicate with Principal – if no time
5. Duty not to deal on his own accounts.
6. Duty not to make secret profits from agency.
7. Duty to pay the amount received from the Principal.
8. Duty not to use the information received in the course of agency, against the Principal.
9. Duty to protect the interest of the Principal in case of his death or insanity.
10. Duty not to delegate authority.
AGENT’S SPECIFIC DUTIES TO THE
PRINCIPAL
Performance Notification

Accountability Loyalty
DUTY OF PERFORMANCE
An agent’s duty to a Principal that includes:
1. Performing the lawful duties expressed in the contract. This following of lawful duties is called
the duty of obedience. However, some agents may be granted the leeway to use their
discretion based on the circumstances. Bertram Armstrong and Company v Godfray (1830) is
a key case that illustrated the consequences of not following the Principal’s instructions.
2. Meeting the standards of reasonable care, skill, and diligence implicit in all contracts.
3. An agent who does not perform his or her express duties or fails to use the standard degree
of care, skill, or diligence is liable to the principal for breach of contract.
4. An agent who has negligently (or intentionally) failed to perform properly is also liable in tort.
 DUTY OF NOTIFICATION

• An agent’s duty to notify the Principal of information he or she learns from a third party or
other source that is important to the Principal.

• The agent is liable to the Principal for any injuries resulting from a breach of this duty.
DUTY OF LOYALTY
• The agency relationship is based on trust and confidence.
• An agent owes a fiduciary duty not to act adversely to the interests of the Principal. Mahesan v
Malaysian Government Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (1979) and Boardman v
Phipps (1967) illustrate that the agent can become liable for losses suffered by the
Principal for breach of fiduciary duties.
• If this duty is breached, the agent is liable to the Principal.
• The most common types of breaches of loyalty by an agent are:
– Self-dealing
– Usurping an opportunity
– Competing with the Principal
– Misuse of confidential information
– Dual agency

.
DUTY OF ACCOUNTABILITY
• A duty that an agent owes to maintain an accurate accounting of all transactions undertaken
on the Principal’s behalf.

• This duty also requires the agent to:

– Maintain a separate account for the Principal, and
– Use the Principal’s property in an authorized manner.
RIGHTS OF AN AGENT
1. Rights to retain money due from the Principal.
2. Right to receive remuneration.
3. Right to Lien – The agent has the right to retain goods, papers and other property – only
particularly lien.
4. Right to be indemnified against consequences of lawful acts.
5. Right to compensation. Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc (2001): the rights of
compensation of commercial agents were affirmed where the Principal sought to withhold
termination payments from the agent.
6. Right to be indemnified against consequences of acts done in good faith.
7. Right of stoppage of goods in transit.
(a) Principal becomes insolvent.
(b) Agent has bought goods out of his own money.
DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL
1. Pay remuneration to agent as agreed. Where the agent is also an employee, commission must be
paid in addition to wages or salaries accruing to the Individual. This situation was seen in the
case of Rolfe and Company v George (1968). But if the sale was not successful, the agent is
NOT entitled to a commission as seen in the case of Luxor Eastbourne Limited v Cooper
(1941).
2. Indemnify agent for lawful acts done by him or her as agent.
3. Indemnify agent for all acts done by him or her in good faith.
4. Indemnify agent if he or she suffers loss due to neglect or lack of skill of Principal.
RIGHTS OF PRINCIPAL
1. Recover damages from agent if he or she disregards directions of Principal.
2. Obtain accounts from Agent.
3. Recover monies collected by Agent on behalf of Principal.
4. Obtain details of secret profit made by agent and recover it from him or her.
5. Forfeit remuneration of Agent if he or she misconducts the business.
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY BY AN AGENT
• General Rule
“ Delegatus non-protest delegare” i.e. a delegate cannot further delegate.
• But in exceptional cases, sub-agent can be appointed.
CASES:
1. Express authority from Principal.
2. Where the Principal has impliedly by his conduct allowed such delegation of authority.
3. Ordinary Custom of a particular trader.
4. Nature of the work.
5. Acts which do not require personal or professional skill
6. Due to unforeseen emergencies.
2 TYPES OF AUTHORITY
1. ACTUAL or REAL AUTHORITY
Authority conferred upon agent by his Principal. There are 2 kinds:
(a) Express Authority : Actual express authority can be viewed as authority conferred specifically
on an agent that legally binds Principals and 3rd parties as illustrated in SMC Electronics Ltd v
Akhter Computers Ltd (2001).
(b) Implied Authority: conferred upon the agent by the conduct of the Principal OR the conduct
of the parties OR the particular circumstances of the case as in the case of Hely-Hutchinson v
Brayhead Ltd (1967).
2. OSTENSIBLE Or APPARENT AUTHORITY
• The act is in excess of the actual authority
• Authority due to the appearance created by the Principal. Panorama Development (Guilford)
Ltd v Fidelis Furnishings Fabrics Ltd (1971) and Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park
Properties Ltd (1964) illustrate apparent OR ostensible authority.
REL ATIONSHIP
OF PRINCIPAL
RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL &
3 PARTY (1)
RD
• Scope and extent of agent’s authority
• Principal and the 3rd Party
• Personal liability of the agent

AGENT’S AUTHORITY
Power or capacity to bind the Principal with the 3rd party

TWO TYPES OF AUTHORITY

(1) Actual Or Real Authority
(2) Ostensible Or Apparent Authority
RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL &
3 PARTY (2)
RD
• In situations where expressly or by implication an agent gives 3rd parties the impression that he
or she has the authority to act, but is in fact outside the scope of his or her authority, the agent
has breached his warrant of authority and the 3rd party can sue the agent.

• The suing is possible UNLESS the Principal RATIFIES the unauthorized actions of the agent.

• If there is NO ratification, the 3rd party may sue for any losses suffered as in the case of Hadley v
Baxendale (1854).

• In situations where the 3rd party is aware that the agent lacks authority, he or she cannot hold
the Principal liable as the contract is with the agent as in the case of Watteau v Fenwick (1983).
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRINCIPAL
& SUB-AGENT (1)
Discussed under two heads:
1. Where the sub-agent is properly appointed.
2. Where the sub-agent is improperly appointed.

(1) Where the sub-agent is properly appointed

a. The Principal is bound and is liable to 3rd parties for the acts of the sub-agent.
b. Where the agent is responsible to the Principal for the acts of the sub-agent.
c. The sub-agent is responsible for his acts to original agent not to Principal except in
fraud or wilful wrong.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PRINCIPAL & SUB-AGENT (2)
2. Where the sub-agent is improperly appointed
a. The Principal is not represented by sub-agent and hence he is not liable for acts of the sub-
agent.
b. The agent is responsible for the acts of the sub-agent to the Principal as well as to 3rd parties.
c. The sub-agent is not responsible to the Principal at all.
LIABILIT Y &
AGENCY
DISCLOSURE
PERSONAL LIABILITY OF AGENT
1. When contract expressly provides.
2. Agent acts for foreign Principal.
3. Agent acts for undisclosed Principal.
4. When Principal can not be sued.
5. Where agent signs contract in his name.
6. Principal is not in existence.
7. Liable for breach of warranty of authority.
8. When he or she receives money by mistake.
9. Authority is coupled with interest.
10. Trade makes agent personally liable.
CONTRACT LIABILITY TO THIRD
PARTIES
• A principal who authorizes an agent to enter into a contract with a third party is liable on
the contract.
• The third party can enforce the contract and recover damages if the principal fails to
perform it.
• The agent can also be held liable on the contract in certain circumstances.
• Liability depends on whether the agency is classified as:
– Fully disclosed
– Partially disclosed
– Undisclosed
FULLY DISCLOSED AGENCY
• An agency that results if the third party entering into the contract knows:
– That the agent is acting as an agent for a principal, and
– The actual identity of the principal

• The principal is liable to the third party.

• The agent is not liable.

PARTIALLY DISCLOSED AGENCY
• An agency that occurs if:
– The agent discloses his or her agency status but does not reveal the principal’s identity,
and
– The third party does not know the principal’s identity from another source
• Both the principal and the agent are liable to the third party if the principal fails to perform
the contract.
UNDISCLOSED AGENCY
• An agency that occurs when the third party is unaware of either:
– The existence of an agency, or
– The principal’s identity

• Both the principal and the agent are liable to the third party if the principal fails to perform
the contract.
TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES
• The Principal and the agent are each personally liable for their own tortious conduct.

• The Principal is liable for the tortious conduct of an agent who is acting within the scope of
his or her authority. Thus, in cases where an agent is acting fraudulently or fostering their
personal interests, the Principal is also bound. This situation occurred in the case of Lloyd v
Grade, Smith & Company (1912).

• The agent only is liable for the tortious conduct of the Principal if he or she directly or
indirectly participates in or aids and abets the Principal’s conduct.
TERMINATION
OF AGENCY
TERMINATION OF AGENCY
End the relationship of a Principal and his Agent.
Studied under:
(1) Termination of agency by act of the Parties.
(2) Termination of agency by operation of law.

(1) Termination of agency by act of the parties

1. Agreement – between the Principal and agent.
2. Revocation by the Principal: Revocation may be Express or implied – There are conditions:
(i) In case of continuous agency
(ii) Where an agency has been created for a fixed period of time
3. Revocation of agency by the agent.
TERMINATION OF AGENCY BY
OPERATION OF THE LAW
1. Completion of agency business.
2. Expiry of time.
3. Death of the Principal or the agent.
4. Insanity of the Principal or the agent.
5. Insolvency of the Principal.
6. Destruction of the subject-matter of the agency.
7. Dissolution of a company.
8. Principal or agent becomes alien company.
EFFECTIVENESS OF TERMINATION
As between the Principal and agent, termination of agency is effective only when it becomes
known to the agent.
- 3rd Parties – when it is known to them.

Irrevocable Agency
(1). Where the agency is coupled with interest: where the agent has some interest over the
subject-matter.
(2) When the revocation would cause the agent personal loss.
(3) When the authority has been partly exercised by the agent.
WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF AN
AGENCY OR EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT
• The termination of an agency contract in violation of the terms of the agency contract.

• The nonbreaching party may recover damages from the breaching party.

• The distinction between the power and the right to terminate an agency is critical.
E-COMMERCE &
ELECTRONIC
CONTRACTS
ELEMENTS OF THE LAW OF E-COMMERCE
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
ELEMENTS OF THE LAW OF E-COMMERCE

• Explain the regulation of electronic transactions

• Discuss what security measures are available to deal with computer crime (a.k.a.
Cybercrimes)
WHAT IS E-COMMERCE ?
Includes:
• Online business to business transactions
• Online business to consumer transactions
• Digital delivery of products and services
• Online merchandising
• Automated telephone transactions eg phone banking
ELECTRONIC / ONLINE CONTRACTS
Electronic or online contracts must meet the same legal requirements of a valid effective physical
contract in order to be enforced by the parties that are signatory to the contract which include:

a) Meeting of the Minds

b) Basic tenets of: - offer; acceptance; intention to create legal relations; consideration; execution;
performance; termination
c) Create terms that visitors can easily understand
d) Electronic contracts can be verbal or Implied like regular contracts
e) In fact electronic contracts can be made more effectively applying web technologies such as
voice recordings, JavaScript and digital signatures
MEETING OF THE MINDS CONCEPT
1. Online/Electronic contracts are legally binding and enforceable when the transaction is
viewed as an offer made by the website owner or administrator to the the visitor or user
who can either accept or reject he offer by clicking on agreement button or rejecting the
offer by leaving the website.

2. Electronic/online contracts must provide visual cues for the user when they visit a
website; the 4 criteria are:
a) Awareness of the existence of a contract
b) Must have opportunities to review the agreement
c) Must understand the method to execute or decline the contract
d) The website must have a mechanism to prove the user executed or declined the contract
ELECTRONIC CONTRACT TERMS
• Must be easily understood
• Must implement a mechanism for user assent OR acceptance of the electronic contract.
• User assent or acceptance is achieved using a green button with the words ‘I agree’.
• Users should know that the green button represents the user assent OR acceptance of the
electronic contract.
• Users must have alternative actions such as leaving the website if the choose OR decide
not to fulfill user assent OR acceptance OR decide to execute the electronic contract or
not.
3 TYPES OF ELECTRONIC CONTRACT
FORMATION
• “Browse Wrap” Contracts
Some websites use licenses which is part of an online agreement.

• “ Click-Wrap” Contracts
License terms must be agreed to before software is installed.

• “ Shrink-Wrap” Contracts
Place License terms OUTSIDE the box. Opening the packaging is an “ acceptance” of the
offer.
CONTRACTS & E-COMMERCE
• Law of contracts
• Issues for e-commerce
PRACTICAL CONCERNS FOR
E-COMMERCE BUSINESS DEALS (1)
• Identity and capacity of seller or buyer
• Authenticity of offer and acceptance (digital signatures)
• When and where contract formed
• Governing law
• Terms and conditions (click through)
 PRACTICAL CONCERNS FOR
E-COMMERCE BUSINESS DEALS (2)
• Agreement on electronic payment system

• Security of information exchanges

• Consequences on breach

• Storing electronic data to prevent alteration

CYBER CRIMES
CYBERCRIMES
• Cybercrimes are the downsides of e-commerce.
• Defined as “ any criminal activity occurring via a computer in the virtual community of the
Internet” (Clarkson, 2012, p. 212).
• Cybercrimes put users data at risk and result in serious economic and personal loss to both
governments businesses and individuals.
• The crime involves using computer technology for the perpetration of criminal activity. Most
cybercrimes involve fraud, theft of intellectual property and data theft.
• Module 8 focuses on 2 specific sets of cybercrimes:
(1) cyber fraud; and
(2) Cyber theft.
CYBERFRAUD CRIMES
• Cyber fraud crimes = crimes committed via internet unlike regular fraud.

• Examples of cyber fraud crimes are:

1) Online Auction Fraud
2) Online Retail Fraud
3) Employment Fraud
4) Credit Card Fraud
CYBER THEFT CRIMES
• Cyber theft crimes = cybercriminal appropriates important pieces of personal date such as
birth date, passport information, etc., and causes serious economic and personal loss.

• Examples of cyber theft crimes include:

1) Identity theft
2) Phishing
3) Hacking
4) Malware Sub-heading
PRIVACY & DATA PROTECTION
• 2 Main threats to personal information and privacy: (1). Threat from other people including
friends, family members, co-workers and employees;
(2) threat from govt and other public and private agencies. See the case of Griswald v
Conneticut (1965) a landmark case in the area of privacy which the US Supreme
Court ruled and established that there are zones of privacy specifically marital privacy
that were free from government intrusion.

• Under common law torts, there 4 categories privacy torts including:

(a) Intrusion upon seclusion.
(b).Violations of individual privacy using social media
(c) Misappropriation of a person’s name or likeness
(d) Public disclosure of private facts, publicly placing a person in a false light
JURISDICTION ISSUES IN CYBERSPACE
• For paper based transactions, the jurisdiction for contesting a contract is where the
contract was made.

• In cyberspace, jurisdiction is difficult to determine because there are no geographic

boundaries and cybercriminals do not leave physical footprints or fingerprints so it is difficult
for law enforcement to identify and locate cybercriminals.

• Cybercriminals jurisdiction issues are settled by courts in some countries by deciding the
relevant law to use will be the law where the material was downloaded or accessed. See the
cases of Gutnick v Dow Jones & Co Inc (2001) and Dow Jones and Company v
Gutnick (2002) : both these cases are examples of internet defamation cases
P R E PA R E D B Y :
N ATA S H A G O M E S - G E O R G E
JUNE 2018
THE END

T H A N K YO U F O R YO U R T I M E