lOMoARcPSD| 38777299
NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY -------***------- Course: Business Law Lecturer: TRAN VAN NAM
Title: Associate Professor; Ph.D and Dean
Topic: CASE 10.4:
Home Basket Company v. Pampered Chef, Ltd. Team members: Ngo Minh Tu Nguyen Duy Anh Than Viet Hoang Dao Thi Thuy Hien
Ha Noi, 28 th February 2022 lOMoARcPSD| 38777299 Table of Contents
1. Fact .................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Identify problem and analysis ............................................................................................ 4
2.1. Terms of the contract ................................................................................................. 4
2.2. Forum selection clause............................................................................................... 7
3. Illustrated case (Citing cases) ........................................................................................... 8
3.1. Irsik & Doll Feed Servs., Inc. v. Roberts Enters. Invs., Inc .......................................... 8
3.2. Anderson v. Amazon.com, Inc .................................................................................... 9 3.3. Keenan v.
Berger.......................................................................................................10 ...................... 9
3.4. Signature Mktg., Inc. v. New Frontier Armory, LLC ..................................................... 9
4. Answer question ............................................................................................................. 10
4.2. Question 2: Does it matter to the court that neither side ever signed a written
agreement? ..................................................................................................................... 10
4.3. Question 3: What responsibility does the court impose on those who use Web sites
for contracting purposes? ................................................................................................ 10
5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 11
6. Implecation to Vietnam ................................................................................................... 11
7. References ..................................................................................................................... 14
4.1. Question 1: Describe the ordering process between the two parties..........................11 Case details
Textbook: Foundations of Business Law and Legal Environment, 2nd edition, Chapter 10, case 10.4, page 245)
Full title: Home Basket Company, LLC, d/b/a Greenbrier Basket Company, Plaintiff, v…
Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas Date published: Jan 12, 2005
Home Basket Company v. Pampered Chef, Ltd., Case No. 04-1314-WEB (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 2005) lOMoARcPSD| 38777299 1. Fact
1. On October 7, 2003, GBC entered into a business relationship with TPC,
whereby,GBC would sell woven baskets to TPC. (Pl. Ex. B, Bennett Aff. ¶ 5, Def. Ex. A-1).
2. On October 28, 2003, an executive sales agreement was drafted but never
signedby the parties. (Pl. Ex. A, Pollock Aff. ¶ 5, Borna Aff. ¶ 7). This agreement
had a forum selection clause. (Pl. Ex. A, Pollock Aff. ¶ 5).
3. There is a disputed fact as to why a sales agreement was never signed. GBC
maintains that the agreement was not signed because GBC did not agree to the
forum selection clause. (Pollock Aff. ¶ 5). TPC does not dispute that the
agreement was never signed but states that GBC made representations that there
was no problem with the forum selection clause. (Borna Aff. ¶¶ 7-8, Def. Ex. A-1).
4. Prior to the October 28, 2003 aborted sales agreement, GBC had accepted
purchase orders from TPC. (Pl. Ex. B).
5. The ordering process would begin with TPC e-mailing GBC regarding an offer to
fillan order. GBC would then go to TPC's website and fill out the purchase order
using TPC's purchase order management system and would click on the "Accept
P.O." button at the end of the terms and conditions field. (Pollock Aff. ¶ 7, Beal Aff. ¶¶ 5-6, Def. Ex. A-1, B).
6. Cyndee Pollock would receive offers to purchase goods via e-mail from TPC and
would tell an employee, Mark Beal, to accept these purchase orders via TPC's
internet site. (Pollock Aff. ¶ 7, Beal Aff. ¶ 5-6).
7. Beal is an employee of GBC. (Beal Aff. ¶ 2).
8. Pollock is a manager at GBC. (Pollock Aff. ¶ 2).
9. There is a disputed fact regarding GBC's knowledge of the terms and conditions
on the internet site where GBC accepted the purchase orders. 10.
Through two affidavits, GBC denies knowing that there were terms and
conditions, including a forum selection clause, on the TPC's internet acceptance
site. (Pollock Aff. ¶ 9, Beal ¶ 7). 11.
TPC provides evidence showing that GBC did have knowledge of the terms
and conditions. TPC sent Mark Beal an e-mail with an attachment showing him
how to use TPC's purchase order management system. (Bennett Aff. A ¶ 5, Def.
Ex. A-1). The attachment included instructions regarding the use of the purchase
order management system, including, in section four, three paragraphs under the
title "Accepting and Rejecting Purchase Orders". (Def. Ex. A-1). The relevant portion of which states:
Clicking on the Accept P.O. button will cause the terms and conditions of the
purchase order to pop-up. The user should review these terms and conditions and
click the Accept P.O. button at the bottom of the pop-up screen . . . If the purchase
order is not acceptable in it's [sic] current form, the user may click on the Reject and
Request Changes button. This causes a pop-up window to appear where the user lOMoARcPSD| 38777299
may enter a free-form text describing the reason for rejecting the purchase order and
request changes that would make the purchase order acceptable. (Id.)
On October 22, 2003, Cyndee Pollock sent TPC an e-mail asking TPC to change the
Terms and Conditions for purchase order 58144. (Bennett Aff. ¶ 6, Def. Ex. B, B-1).
Pollock requested TPC to remove Section 14 of the Terms and Conditions, change
terms to `Letter of Credit' and change expiration date to January 2004. (Id.). 12.
Clause 17 of the Terms and Conditions in TPC's purchase management order system states:
This Purchase Order shall be deemed to have been made in Addison, Illinois USA
and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of State of
Illinois [sic] . The sole and exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of resolving any
dispute shall be the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. (Def. Ex. B).
Home Basket Company v. Pampered Chef, Ltd., Case No. 04-1314-WEB, 2-4 (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 2005)
2. Identify problem and analysis 2.1. Terms of the contract
Because this case involves the sale of goods, the Court will apply Article 2 of the
UCC to determine the terms and conditions of the parties' agreement. K.S.A. § 84- 2102.
"An offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any
manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances." KSA § 84-2-206. The
UCC does not define what constitutes an offer so the Court must look to the common
law rules. See K.S.A. § 84-2-206(Kansas comment); K.S.A. § 84-1-103 (unless
displaced by the UCC, common law supplements UCC provisions). An offer is an
expression of a willingness to enter into an agreement and must reasonably lead the
offeree to believe that a power to create a contract has been conferred upon him.
Kansas Power Light Co. v. Burlington N.R. Co., 740 F.2d 780, 786 (10th Cir. 1984).
TPC's e-mails containing purchase order information constituted an offer to buy
baskets. The emails consisted of information about the quantity ofbaskets to be
bought, price, shipment information and delivery dates. None of the emails had any
forum selection clause; however, they did state a specific manner of acceptance:
1. Upon receipt of order, please acknowledge via internet at [website]. By
acknowledging this P.O.[purchase order], you also acknowledge the terms and conditions of this P.O. lOMoAR cPSD| 38777299
2. To accept this P.O. via internet, visit [website].
The evidence shows at least nine such e-mail offers. (Pl. Ex. B). GBC consistently
went to the TPC website to accept these offers. (Pollock Aff. ¶ 6, Beal Aff. ¶ 6).
GBC makes several arguments, without supporting case law, that the forum
selection clause should not be part of the parties' contract. None of these arguments
dispute when acceptance was made.
Plaintiff first argues that the e-mail offers are ambiguous because it did not alert GBC
to the forum selection clause that had to be accepted on the website. "Whether
ambiguity exists in an instrument is a matter of law to be decided by the court."
Mobile Acres, Inc. v. Kurata, 211 Kan. 833, 839 (1973). The TPC e-mails state that
the way to acknowledge (ie. accept) the purchase order was to go to the website.
See K.S.A. § 84-2- 206(An offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting
acceptance in any manner). The e-mail is not ambiguous as it also alerted GBC that
there were terms and conditions associated with acknowledging the P.O. on the website.
GBC next argues that it should not be held to the terms and conditions accepted on
the website because plaintiff thought that the e-mails' terms and conditions were all inclusive.
"It is a well-established rule of law that contracting parties have a duty to learn the
contents of a written contract before signing it, and such duty includes reading the
contract and obtaining an explanation of its terms. Sutherland v. Sutherland, 187
Kan. 599 (1961). The negligent failure of a party to read the written contract entered
into will estop the contracting party from voiding the contract on the ground of
ignorance of its contents. Rosenbaum v. Texas Energies, Inc., 241 Kan. 295 (1987).
Therefore, a party who signs a written contract is bound by its provisions regardless
of the failure to read or understand the terms, unless the contract was entered into
through fraud, undue influence, or mutual mistake. Id." Albers v. Nelson, 248 Kan. 575, 578-579 (1991).
"A cardinal rule in the construction of contracts is to ascertain the intention of the
parties and to give effect to that intention." Mobile Acres, 211 Kan. at 838.
In determining intent to form a contract, the test is objective, rather than subjective,
meaning that *7 the relevant inquiry is the `manifestation of a party's intention, rather
than the actual or real intention.' Put another way, `the inquiry will focus not on the
question of whether the subjective minds of the parties have met, but on whether
their outward expression of assent is sufficient to form a contract. Southwest and
Associates, Inc. v. Steven Enterprises, LLC, 88 P.3d 1246, 1249 (Kan.Ct.App. 2004).
This was a website that required action on the part of GBC. Plaintiff objectively
agreed to the forum selection clause by scrolling through the terms and conditions
and clicking on the `Accept P.O.' button. Plaintiff's subjective beliefs that it was the
email and not the website terms and conditions that governed the contract are both lOMoAR cPSD| 38777299
misplaced and irrelevant. Plaintiff was under a duty to read and understand the
terms and conditions prior to clicking the `Accept P.O.' button as this was the formal
acceptance required by TPC's offer to purchase baskets. See K.S.A. § 84-2-206.
Failure to read or understand the terms and conditions is not a valid reason to render
those provisions nugatory. Rosenbaum, 241 Kan. at 295.
Plaintiff next argues that the forum selection clause should not be read into the
contract because GBC rejected an Exclusive Sales Agreement containing such a
clause. Plaintiff claims that the failure to sign this agreement shows that they did not
intend that a forum selection clause be part of the contract.
The evidence shows that the Exclusive Sales Agreement was discussed on October
28, 2003. (Pl. Ex. A). The date of the first e-mail inviting GBC to accept a purchase
order was October 7, 2003. (Pl. Ex. B). Plaintiff's subjective reasons for refusing to
sign the Exclusive Sales Agreement are irrelevant as GBC consistently agreed, in an
objective manner prior to the Exclusive Sales Agreement, to contracts with the terms
and conditions on TPC's website. The Court will not alter the plain terms in the
parties' contract because GBC refused to sign the Exclusive Sales Agreement.
Plaintiff also argues that there was no meeting of the minds regarding the forum
selection clause on the website. A meeting of the minds requirement is proved when
the evidence shows with reasonable *8 definiteness that the minds of the parties met
upon the same matter and agreed up on the terms of the contract. Steele v.
Harrison, 220 Kan. 422, 428 (1976). Part of clause 17 states `each shipment
received by Buyer from Seller shall be deemed to be only upon the terms and
conditions as set forth in this Purchase Order . . .". (Def. Ex. A). GBC agreed upon
these terms and conditions published on TPC's website by clicking the "Accept P.O."
button and this satisfied the meeting of the minds standard.
Finally, in an argument supported by no case law, plaintiff argues that Mark Beal had
no authority to bind GBC to any terms and conditions. Plaintiff is reminded that legal
contentions must be warranted by existing law and must not be frivolous.
It is a general rule of agency that a principal is liable to third parties for the acts and
contracts entered into by his agent when that principal has conferred upon the agent
express authority for such activities. Greep v. Bruns, 160 Kan. 48, 55 (1945). Beal
had express authority to accept the purchase order on TPC's purchase order
acceptance system because he was specifically directed to do so by Pollock, his
supervisor and GBC manager. (Pollock Aff. ¶ 7, Beal Aff. ¶¶ 4- 6). As this was within
Beal's scope of employment duties, his acceptance of the terms and conditions on the TPC website bound GBC.
The Court holds that the forum selection clause in the terms and conditions on TPC's
website are a part of the parties' contract. lOMoARcPSD| 38777299 2.2. Forum selection clause
The Supreme Court has stated that forum selection clauses are prima facie valid and
should be enforced unless a party can show it is unreasonable under the
circumstances. The Bremen v. Zapata Of -Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 6 (1972); K V
Scientific Co., Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke *9 Aktiengese . . ., 314 F.3d 494,
498 (10th Cir. 2002). GBC has failed to show that enforcement of the forum selection clause would be unreasonable.
Forum selection clauses can be classified as either mandatory or permissive. K V
Scientific Co., 314 F.3d at 498. "Mandatory forum selection clauses contain clear
language showing that jurisdiction is appropriate only in the designated forum.
Excell, Inc. v. Sterling Boiler Mech., Inc., 106 F.3d 318, 321 (10th Cir. 1997). "In
contrast, permissive forum selection clauses authorize jurisdiction in a designated
forum, but do not prohibit litigation elsewhere." Id. "The use of the word `shall'
generally indicates a mandatory intent unless a convincing argument to the
contraryis made." Milk `N' More, Inc. v. Beavert, 963 F.2d 1342, 1346 (10th Cir. 1992).
The forum selection clause in this case states, "The sole and exclusive jurisdiction
for the purpose of resolving any dispute shall be the United States District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division." (Def. Ex. B). This is a mandatory
clause as it designates an exclusive forum and uses the word `shall'.
Because the forum selection clause is a part of the contract and it is valid, a Kansas
venue is improper. "Whenvenue is improper, the court may, in the interests of
justice, transfer the case to a district court in which it could have been brought."
United States ex rel. Tech Coatings v. MillerStauch Construction, 904 F. Supp. 1209,
1214 (D. Kan. 1995); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1404. While both dismissal
and transfer are available under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), transfer is the preferred course. Id.
Courts generally use the standards under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to evaluate transfers
pursuant to a forum selection clause. Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 28; Black Veatch,
123 F. Supp. 2d at 580. "Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district
court to adjudicate motions for transfer *10 according to an individualized case-
bycase consideration of convenience and fairness." Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 29
(citations omitted). This Circuit evaluates § 1404 transfers under the following standard:
Among the factors [a judge] should consider is the plaintiff’s choice of forum; the
accessibility of witnesses and the other sources of proof; including the availabilityof
compulsory process to insure attendance of witnesses; the cost of making the
necessary proof; question as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained;
relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial; difficulties that may arise from lOMoARcPSD| 38777299
congested dockets; the possibility of the existence of questions arising in the area of
conflict of laws; the advantage of having a local court determine questions of local
law; and, all other considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy,
expeditious and economical. Texas Gulf Sulfur Co. v. Ritter, 371 F.2d 145, 147 (10th Cir. 1967).
However, a forum selection clause will "be a significant factor that figures centrally in
the district court's calculus" in a motion to transfer. Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 29. This
Circuit generally gives deference to forum selectionclauses except incases showing
an inconvenience so serious as to foreclose a remedy, bad faith, overreaching or
lack of notice. Riley, 969 F.2d at 958; See also M.K.C, 843 F. Supp. at 682; Black
Veatch, 123 F. Supp. 2d at 581(A venue mandated by a choice of forum clause will
usually outweigh the deference normally given to plaintiff's choice of forum). Plaintiff
neither argues this issue nor claims any inconvenience, lack of notice or bad faith.
Considering all of the factors and arguments, the Court holds that the case should be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
It is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss due to improper venue (Doc. 10) be DENIED;
It is further ORDERED that the case be TRANSFERRED in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division;
It is further ORDERED that Defendant's motion requesting transfer pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) be DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED.
3. Illustrated case (Citing cases)
3.1. Irsik & Doll Feed Servs., Inc. v. Roberts Enters. Invs., Inc.
Case No. 6:16-1018-EFM-GEB (D. Kan. Jun. 20, 2016)
Explaining "even if diversity jurisdiction is satisfied, a valid forum-selection clause in
a contract may preclude a federal court from exercising jurisdiction if the parties have
agreed in that clause to litigate elsewhere"
Vanier, 251 Kan. at 94, 833 P.2d at 955. Home Basket Co. v. Pampered Chef,
Ltd., 2005 WL 82136 at *5 (D. Kan. 2005). High Plains Publishers, Inc. v. Lando
Partners, Inc., 2012 WL 5995565 at *2 (D. Kan. 2012). lOMoARcPSD| 38777299
3.2. Anderson v. Amazon.com, Inc.
490 F. Supp. 3d 1265 (M.D. Tenn. 2020)
Although Tennessee courts appear to have not spoken on the issue, other
jurisdictions that have considered the issue have held that a contract was formed in
the jurisdiction where a buyer "clicked" the button online to indicate acceptance of
the contract. SeeRimel v. Uber Techs., Inc. , No. 615CV2191ORL41KRS, 2016 WL
6246812, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2016), report and recommendation adopted , 246
F. Supp. 3d 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (applying Florida's lex loci contractus rule and
explaining "[a]lthough the parties do not directly address the question of where Rimel
accepted the June 21, 2014 Services Agreement and its Arbitration Provision,
because he resides in Florida and worked as an uberX driver in Florida, the logical
inference is that he accepted the agreement and the Arbitration Provision by clicking
‘Yes, I Agree’ while he was in Florida. Therefore, Florida law applies to the Arbitration
Provision."); Home Basket Co., LLC v. Pampered Chef, Ltd. , No. 04-1314-WEB,
2005 WL 82136, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 2005) (applying Kansas choice-of-law
principles and noting that the plaintiff "accepted the contract when [its employee]
clicked on the ‘Accept [purchase order]’ button in Kansas."). When ruling on the
applicability of an arbitration clause regarding one of the other Plaintiffs in this case,
this Court previously found that Tennessee courts would likely reach the same result
and found that a contract is entered into in Tennessee, for purposes of the lex loci
contractus rule, by the act of "clicking" online to accept that agreement while present in Tennessee. 3.3. Keenan v. Berger
Case No. CIV-18-584-R (W.D. Okla. Apr. 12, 2019)
The clause cannot be read in the manner suggested by Plaintiff. See Kevlion, Inc. v.
Brion Energy Corp. 2017 WL 3711500, * 3 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 28, 2017)(finding that
agreeing to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Alberta was a
mandatory forum selection clause); Herr Industries v. CTI Systems, SA, 112
F.Supp.3d 1174, 1179 (enforcing clause as mandatory where the parties agreed "to
submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg."); Home Basket Co. v. Pampered Chef, Ltd., 2005 WL 82136 at *5
(D. Kan. 2005)("sole and exclusive jurisdiction" limited venue to the court specified
therein). Finally, Plaintiff also contends that Clause 24 does not apply to all of his
claims, and therefore dismissal in favor of a proceeding in Qatar would be
inappropriate, that is that his claims are not within the scope of the forum selection clause.
3.4. Signature Mktg., Inc. v. New Frontier Armory, LLC
Case No. 15-7200-JWL (D. Kan. Sep. 28, 2016) lOMoARcPSD| 38777299
Denying defendant's summary judgment motion where plaintiff sought lost profits "as
a result of the breach" where contract limited only "any punitive, indirect or
consequential damages . . . including without limitation business interruptions, loss of
profits, loss of revenues, loss of use of assets and loss of contracts"—i.e., it
precluded only recovery of consequential lost profits damages, but did not prohibit direct lost profits damages
" Id. The question for the court, then, is whether plaintiff's quote "unambiguously"
invites acceptance of the offer by only one means—the signing, dating and returning
of the quote. In support of their argument that the quote specifies an exclusive
manner of acceptance, defendants direct the court to three cases—Wachter
Management Co. v. Dexter & Chaney, Inc., 144 P.3d 747 (Kan. 2006); Home Basket
Co. v. Pampered Chef, Ltd., 2005 WL 82136 (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 2005); and Kroeze
v. Chloride Group Limited, 572 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1978). The pertinent facts in each
of these cases are easily distinguishable from the facts presented here and, for that
reason, the cases are not persuasive to the court in resolving defendants' motion. 4. Answer question
4.1. Question 1: Describe the ordering process between the two parties.
The ordering process between the two parties in this case initiates the time TPL displays
orders of required baskets at its site which is then retrieved by an employee of GBC. This
order is then fulfilled by supplying the required number of baskets to TPC. The purchase
order that TPC displays at its site has to be clicked “Accept” by the vendor like GBC which
shows that the order has been accepted by the seller binding both the parties into a sales
agreement. And, if the seller does not want to accept the order, it can click upon “Reject”
button showing non-acceptance of the order by the seller which does not bind the parties
into a sales agreement. This is the ordering process that is followed between the parties in this case.
4.2. Question 2: Does it matter to the court that neither side
ever signed a written agreement?
No, it doesn't matter to the court because once company GBC started raising purchase
orders by using the purchase order system online through company TPC’s software then it
means that they entered into an agreement to sell the goods to company TPC by agreeing
to the conditions of company TPC which were present there on the company’s website
4.3. Question 3: What responsibility does the court impose on
those who use Web sites for contracting purposes?.
People using Electronic websites and sending information such as purchase orders have the
responsibility to read the terms and conditions carefully before accepting them because they lOMoARcPSD| 38777299
are given ample time to do so as they can’t proceed to the next page without filling or accepting the first page.
Thus once they click on the OK button or I accept button that means they have agreed to the
offer. So the court refers to the responsibilities imposed on the parties involved in the trading
equivalent to the one in written agreement. 5. Conclusion
GBC makes woven baskets and receives orders from various parties. One of these
parties is TPC that ordered GBC to provide it with baskets several times using
internet site of TPC. Although, there was a drafting of the sales agreement but the
parties never signed it. TPC orders baskets to TPC which used to be delivered by
GB in required numbers. The site of TPC carried a clause in the sales agreement
according to which any dispute would be resolved at IL State. And by clicking over
this, GBC has implied to agree with this condition. But when the parties developed a
dispute due to matters related to orders and distribution of baskets, GB filed a case
against TPC at KN State. Over this, TPC tried to dismiss the case over wrong venue
or geographic area. GBC argued that it never signed an agreement with TL so the
clause of forum selection does not get applied in this case. But the court decided that
by agreeing to the sales agreement created by TPC in which it was clearly
mentioned that any litigation will be filed at IL State, GBC had to abide by this clause. 6. Implecation to Vietnam
Law on e-transactions Viet Nam
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
XIth Tenure, 8th session (From October 18 to November 29, 2005)
Điều 1. Phạm vi điều chỉnh
Luật này quy định về giao dịch điện tử trong hoạt động của các cơ quan nhà nước;
trong lĩnh vực dân sự, kinh doanh, thương mại và các lĩnh vực khác do pháp luật quy định.
Các quy định của Luật này không áp dụng đối với việc cấp giấy chứng nhận quyền
sử dụng đất, quyền sở hữu nhà và các bất động sản khác, văn bản về thừa kế, giấy
đăng ký kết hôn, quyết định ly hôn, giấy khai sinh, giấy khai tử, hối phiếu và các giấy tờ có giá khác.
Điều 2. Đối tượng áp dụng
Luật này áp dụng đối với cơ quan, tổ chức, cá nhân lựa chọn giao dịch bằng phương tiện điện tử.
Điều 3. Áp dụng Luật giao dịch điện tử lOMoAR cPSD| 38777299
Trường hợp có sự khác nhau giữa quy định của Luật giao dịch điện tử với quy định
của luật khác về cùng một vấn đề liên quan đến giao dịch điện tử thì áp dụng quy
định của Luật giao dịch điện tử.
Điều 4. Giải thích từ ngữ
Trong Luật này, các từ ngữ dưới đây được hiểu như sau:
1. Chứng thư điện tử là thông điệp dữ liệu do tổ chức cung cấp dịch vụ chứng thực
chữ ký điện tử phát hành nhằm xác nhận cơ quan, tổ chức, cá nhân được chứng
thực là người ký chữ ký điện tử.
2. Chứng thực chữ ký điện tử là việc xác nhận cơ quan, tổ chức, cá nhân được
chứng thực là người ký chữ ký điện tử.
3. Chương trình ký điện tử là chương trình máy tính được thiết lập để hoạt động
độclập hoặc thông qua thiết bị, hệ thống thông tin, chương trình máy tính khác
nhằm tạo ra một chữ ký điện tử đặc trưng cho người ký thông điệp dữ liệu.
4. Cơ sở dữ liệu là tập hợp các dữ liệu được sắp xếp, tổ chức để truy cập, khai
thác,quản lý và cập nhật thông qua phương tiện điện tử.
5. Dữ liệu là thông tin dưới dạng ký hiệu, chữ viết, chữ số, hình ảnh, âm thanh hoặc dạng tương tự.
6. Giao dịch điện tử là giao dịch được thực hiện bằng phương tiện điện tử.
7. Giao dịch điện tử tự động là giao dịch điện tử được thực hiện tự động từng phần
hoặc toàn bộ thông qua hệ thống thông tin đã được thiết lập sẵn.
8. Hệ thống thông tin là hệ thống được tạo lập để gửi, nhận, lưu trữ, hiển thị hoặc
thực hiện các xử lý khác đối với thông điệp dữ liệu.
9. Người trung gian là cơ quan, tổ chức, cá nhân đại diện cho cơ quan, tổ chức, cá
nhân khác thực hiện việc gửi, nhận hoặc lưu trữ một thông điệp dữ liệu hoặc
cung cấp các dịch vụ khác liên quan đến thông điệp dữ liệu đó. 10.
Phương tiện điện tử là phương tiện hoạt động dựa trên công nghệ điện, điện
tử, kỹ thuật số, từ tính, truyền dẫn không dây, quang học, điện từ hoặc công nghệ tương tự. 11.
Quy trình kiểm tra an toàn là quy trình được sử dụng để kiểm chứng nguồn
gốc của thông điệp dữ liệu, chữ ký điện tử, phát hiện các thay đổi hoặc lỗi xuất
hiện trong nội dung của một thông điệp dữ liệu trong quá trình truyền, nhận và lưu trữ. 12.
Thông điệp dữ liệu là thông tin được tạo ra, được gửi đi, được nhận và được
lưutrữ bằng phương tiện điện tử. 13.
Tổ chức cung cấp dịch vụ chứng thực chữ ký điện tử là tổ chức thực hiện
hoạt động chứng thực chữ ký điện tử theo quy định của pháp luật. 14.
Tổ chức cung cấp dịch vụ mạng là tổ chức cung cấp hạ tầng đường truyền và
các dịch vụ khác có liên quan để thực hiện giao dịch điện tử. Tổ chức cung cấp
dịch vụ mạng bao gồm tổ chức cung cấp dịch vụ kết nối Internet, tổ chức cung
cấp dịch vụ Internet và tổ chức cung cấp dịch vụ truy cập mạng. 15.
Trao đổi dữ liệu điện tử (EDI – electronic data interchange) là sự chuyển
thông tin từ máy tính này sang máy tính khác bằng phương tiện điện tử theo một
tiêu chuẩn đã được thỏa thuận về cấu trúc thông tin.
Điều 5. Nguyên tắc chung tiến hành giao dịch điện tử
1. Tự nguyện lựa chọn sử dụng phương tiện điện tử để thực hiện giao dịch.
2. Tự thỏa thuận về việc lựa chọn loại công nghệ để thực hiện giao dịch điện tử. lOMoAR cPSD| 38777299
3. Không một loại công nghệ nào được xem là duy nhất trong giao dịch điện tử.
4. Bảo đảm sự bình đẳng và an toàn trong giao dịch điện tử.
5. Bảo vệ quyền và lợi ích hợp pháp của cơ quan, tổ chức, cá nhân, lợi ích của Nhà
nước, lợi ích công cộng.
6. Giao dịch điện tử của cơ quan nhà nước phải tuân thủ các nguyên tắc quy định
tại Điều 40 của Luật này.
Điều 6. Chính sách phát triển và ứng dụng giao dịch điện tử
1. Ưu tiên đầu tư phát triển hạ tầng công nghệ và đào tạo nguồn nhân lực liên quan
đến giao dịch điện tử.
2. Khuyến khích cơ quan, tổ chức, cá nhân đầu tư và ứng dụng giao dịch điện tử
theo quy định của Luật này.
3. Hỗ trợ đối với giao dịch điện tử trong dịch vụ công.
4. Đẩy mạnh việc triển khai thương mại điện tử, giao dịch bằng phương tiện điện tử
và tin học hóa hoạt động của cơ quan nhà nước.
Điều 7. Nội dung quản lý nhà nước về hoạt động giao dịch điện tử
1. Ban hành, tổ chức thực hiện chiến lược, quy hoạch, kế hoạch và chính sách phát
triển, ứng dụng giao dịch điện tử trong các lĩnh vực kinh tế - xã hội, quốc phòng, an ninh.
2. Ban hành, tuyên truyền và tổ chức thực hiện văn bản quy phạm pháp luật về giao dịch điện tử.
3. Ban hành, công nhận các tiêu chuẩn trong giao dịch điện tử.
4. Quản lý các tổ chức cung cấp dịch vụ liên quan đến giao dịch điện tử.
5. Quản lý phát triển hạ tầng công nghệ cho hoạt động giao dịch điện tử.
6. Tổ chức, quản lý công tác đào tạo, bồi dưỡng, xây dựng đội ngũ cán bộ, chuyên
gia trong lĩnh vực giao dịch điện tử.
7. Thanh tra, kiểm tra việc thực hiện pháp luật về giao dịch điện tử; giải quyết khiếu
nại, tố cáo và xử lý vi phạm pháp luật về giao dịch điện tử.
8. Quản lý và thực hiện hoạt động hợp tác quốc tế về giao dịch điện tử.Điều 8.
Trách nhiệm quản lý nhà nước về hoạt động giao dịch điện tử 1. Chính phủ
thống nhất quản lý nhà nước về hoạt động giao dịch điện tử. 2.
Bộ Bưu chính, Viễn thông chịu trách nhiệm trước Chính phủ trong việc chủ
trì, phối hợp với các bộ, ngành có liên quan thực hiện quản lý nhà nước về hoạt
động giao dịch điện tử. 3.
Bộ, cơ quan ngang bộ trong phạm vi nhiệm vụ, quyền hạn của mình có trách
nhiệm thực hiện quản lý nhà nước về hoạt động giao dịch điện tử. 4.
Uỷ ban nhân dân tỉnh, thành phố trực thuộc trung ương trong phạm vi nhiệm
vụ, quyền hạn của mình thực hiện quản lý nhà nước về hoạt động giao dịch điện tử tại địa phương.
Điều 9. Các hành vi bị nghiêm cấm trong giao dịch điện tử
1. Cản trở việc lựa chọn sử dụng giao dịch điện tử.
2. Cản trở hoặc ngăn chặn trái phép quá trình truyền, gửi, nhận thông điệp dữ liệu.
3. Thay đổi, xoá, huỷ, giả mạo, sao chép, tiết lộ, hiển thị, di chuyển trái phép một
phần hoặc toàn bộ thông điệp dữ liệu.
4. Tạo ra hoặc phát tán chương trình phần mềm làm rối loạn, thay đổi, phá hoại hệ
thống điều hành hoặc có hành vi khác nhằm phá hoại hạ tầng công nghệ về giao dịch điện tử. lOMoARcPSD| 38777299
5. Tạo ra thông điệp dữ liệu nhằm thực hiện hành vi trái pháp luật.
6. Gian lận, mạo nhận, chiếm đoạt hoặc sử dụng trái phép chữ ký điện tử của ngườikhác. 7. References
1. Irsik & Doll Feed Servs., Inc. v. Roberts Enters. Invs., Inc., Case No. 6:16-1018-EFM- GEB(D. Kan. Jun. 20, 2016)
2. Anderson v. Amazon.com, Inc., 490 F. Supp. 3d 1265 (M.D. Tenn. 2020)
3. Keenan v. Berger, Case No. CIV-18-584-R (W.D. Okla. Apr. 12, 2019)
4. Signature Mktg., Inc. v. New Frontier Armory, LLC, Case No. 15-7200-JWL (D. Kan. Sep. 28, 2016) 5. LAW ON E-TRANSACTIONS
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
XIth Tenure, 8th session (From October 18 to November 29, 2005)
Pursuant to the 1992 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, as amended under
Resolution No. 51/2001/QH10 dated December 25, 2001 of the Xth National Assembly, the 10th session.