Internet 'contracts'

[Four Cofffee]

What legal force does an internet 'contract' have?

I have a Govt. web site refusing to refund £100 because they say I signed up to an 'auto renewal' of a service by credit card. They say they sent me a reminder 14 days before the deadline by email which i didn't receive. All I have is their word, as I have asked what box I ticked and they have simply sent me the T&C with all of the payment options listed. As far as I can see from their web site now, all I definitely saw was the phrase that the service was subject to an annual renewal fee not that that would be done without any reference to me. It seems they can say what they like and I have no way of disputing it. One assumes that somewhere there is an elctronic trail ow which boxes I ticked?

Do any techies and lawyers have an opinion?

[Matt Evans]

Can you ask for a copy of their sent email?

Edited by Matt Evans on Wednesday 27th January 12:58

[Andydurham]

Email does not give proof of receipt unless it is replied to directly. They should also have posted something to you as it is deemed served by post.

[Four Cofffee]

It seems they have you by default. I may just write top the CEO asking for proof of recipt of the reminder and evidence that I agreed to a recurring payment.

[tank slapper]

You could dispute the charge with your credit card company. They will then require the merchant to produce the authorisation that you gave them. If they are unable to do so, then they should refund the money to you.

[TV8]

the business I work in has "auto" renewalls in its service contracts. We have just been bought by a big bad corporate and due to general belt tightening, we are having more than a few customers challenging the autorenewal this year.

The legal advice we have been given is that unless we can prove we have incurred costs, we can not hold them to contract. I strugle to believe it but it is not loose change and said big bad corporate is not in the habit of giving away £10 let alone £10k+ so the current thinking is with the customer not the supplier..

[Four Cofffee]

TV8 said:

the business I work in has "auto" renewalls in its service contracts. We have just been bought by a big bad corporate and due to general belt tightening, we are having more than a few customers challenging the autorenewal this year.

The legal advice we have been given is that unless we can prove we have incurred costs, we can not hold them to contract. I strugle to believe it but it is not loose change and said big bad corporate is not in the habit of giving away £10 let alone £10k+ so the current thinking is with the customer not the supplier..

Sounds hopeful.

[14-7]

The point here surely is that you want to know what you ticked a year ago (or whatever time period it is).

If you didn't read the T&C's at the time then how can you argue the costs?

Surely if you wish to argue these things then you also should have kept the T&C's and emails etc?

After all you ticked the boxes and therefore agreed to the contract.

[DonnyMac]

Andydurham said:

Email does not give proof of receipt unless it is replied to directly.

Hi Andy, I don't like to disagree with a fellow PHer, but... this is not correct, not by a long shot.

I track 10's of millions of emails every day, and have provided audit trails of receipt without the recipients knowledge.

This may or may not have any impact on the OPs assertion that they did not receive the 'reminder', however, if the sender was using a service similar to mine, they'll have an audit trail of it being opened which can be referenced within seconds and is legally recognised.

I'll happily explain if required.

All the best,
Donny

[JustinP1]

Four Cofffee said:

What legal force does an internet 'contract' have?

I have a Govt. web site refusing to refund £100 because they say I signed up to an 'auto renewal' of a service by credit card. They say they sent me a reminder 14 days before the deadline by email which i didn't receive. All I have is their word, as I have asked what box I ticked and they have simply sent me the T&C with all of the payment options listed. As far as I can see from their web site now, all I definitely saw was the phrase that the service was subject to an annual renewal fee not that that would be done without any reference to me. It seems they can say what they like and I have no way of disputing it. One assumes that somewhere there is an elctronic trail ow which boxes I ticked?

Do any techies and lawyers have an opinion?

What were the exact terms when you signed up?

[jaybkay]

Dispute it with the credit card company, they have to refund and then the other side has to prove it. At the very least it will cause a lot of work (don't take no for an answer from the card company).

Orange once tried to tell me that because I hadn't cancelled a mobile phone contract three months before the end of the year, I would have to pay. Don't think so, it was November 1999, I emigrated two months later - never paid (why would I pay for a service I didn't want and couldn't use?)

[siscar]

jaybkay said:

Dispute it with the credit card company, they have to refund and then the other side has to prove it. At the very least it will cause a lot of work (don't take no for an answer from the card company).

Orange once tried to tell me that because I hadn't cancelled a mobile phone contract three months before the end of the year, I would have to pay. Don't think so, it was November 1999, I emigrated two months later - never paid (why would I pay for a service I didn't want and couldn't use?)

It's more the other way round. If you dispute it with the credit card company they will question it with the supplier, only if they don't get a satisfactory response wil you get a refund.

[streaky]

DonnyMac said:

Andydurham said:

Email does not give proof of receipt unless it is replied to directly.

Hi Andy, I don't like to disagree with a fellow PHer, but... this is not correct, not by a long shot.

I track 10's of millions of emails every day, and have provided audit trails of receipt without the recipients knowledge.

This may or may not have any impact on the OPs assertion that they did not receive the 'reminder', however, if the sender was using a service similar to mine, they'll have an audit trail of it being opened which can be referenced within seconds and is legally recognised.

I'll happily explain if required.

All the best,
Donny

Assuming standard email services are used, the best that can be achieved from the sender's end using is to demonstrate that the email was sent. With access further along the transmission path, it is possible to demonstrate that it was received by the recipient's email service provider. Without access to the recipient's computer it is not possible to demonstrate that they received and opened the email.

An email could be intercepted by the intended recipient's email service provider as potentially 'spam' and put in a separate folder (which might be set to auto-delete after a period of time). An email passing this test might still be trapped as 'spam' by the recipient's email engine (e.g. Outlook) or anti-spam software, and consigned to the 'Junk' or 'Spam' folder or even automatically deleted. There might be rules running within the recipient's email client that automatically delete emails with words in the Subject or Sender fields.

The recipient's liability for receipt in these instances has not (AFAIK) been tested in law. If the recipient has not set up such anti-spam filtering themselves, they might be able to argue that it is viable for them to repudiate receipt of an email subject to such filter(s). However, if they turned on the anti-spam filtering, they might be on a stickier wicket; and certainly would be if they had set up such filtering rules.

Setting aside intermediate gateways, there are at least 16 potential sources of evidence for the transmission and receipt of emails:
1) The sender's email client.
2) The sender's email server.
3) The sender's email gateway.
4) The sender's Internet gateway.
5) The addressee's email service provider's Internet gateway (in).
6) The addressee's email service provider's email gateway (in).
7) The addressee's email service provider's email server (in).
8) The addressee's email service provider's email server (out).
9) The addressee's email service provider's email gateway (out).
10) The addressee's email service provider's Internet gateway (out).
11) The addressee's Internet gateway (if logged).
12) The addressee's email gateway (if logged).
13) The addressee's email server (if used).
14) The addressee's email client (if used).
15) The addressee's Internet browser cache (if webmail used).
16) The addressee's computer filespace and "deleted" filespace.

Only some of these are accessible without a warrant or other authorisation.

Streaky

[marshalla]

streaky said:

DonnyMac said:

Andydurham said:

Email does not give proof of receipt unless it is replied to directly.

Hi Andy, I don't like to disagree with a fellow PHer, but... this is not correct, not by a long shot.

I track 10's of millions of emails every day, and have provided audit trails of receipt without the recipients knowledge.

This may or may not have any impact on the OPs assertion that they did not receive the 'reminder', however, if the sender was using a service similar to mine, they'll have an audit trail of it being opened which can be referenced within seconds and is legally recognised.

I'll happily explain if required.

All the best,
Donny

Assuming standard email services are used, the best that can be achieved from the sender's end using is to demonstrate that the email was sent. With access further along the transmission path, it is possible to demonstrate that it was received by the recipient's email service provider. Without access to the recipient's computer it is not possible to demonstrate that they received and opened the email.

An email could be intercepted by the intended recipient's email service provider as potentially 'spam' and put in a separate folder (which might be set to auto-delete after a period of time). An email passing this test might still be trapped as 'spam' by the recipient's email engine (e.g. Outlook) or anti-spam software, and consigned to the 'Junk' or 'Spam' folder or even automatically deleted. There might be rules running within the recipient's email client that automatically delete emails with words in the Subject or Sender fields.

The recipient's liability for receipt in these instances has not (AFAIK) been tested in law. If the recipient has not set up such anti-spam filtering themselves, they might be able to argue that it is viable for them to repudiate receipt of an email subject to such filter(s). However, if they turned on the anti-spam filtering, they might be on a stickier wicket; and certainly would be if they had set up such filtering rules.

Setting aside intermediate gateways, there are at least 16 potential sources of evidence for the transmission and receipt of emails:
1) The sender's email client.
2) The sender's email server.
3) The sender's email gateway.
4) The sender's Internet gateway.
5) The addressee's email service provider's Internet gateway (in).
6) The addressee's email service provider's email gateway (in).
7) The addressee's email service provider's email server (in).
8) The addressee's email service provider's email server (out).
9) The addressee's email service provider's email gateway (out).
10) The addressee's email service provider's Internet gateway (out).
11) The addressee's Internet gateway (if logged).
12) The addressee's email gateway (if logged).
13) The addressee's email server (if used).
14) The addressee's email client (if used).
15) The addressee's Internet browser cache (if webmail used).
16) The addressee's computer filespace and "deleted" filespace.

Only some of these are accessible without a warrant or other authorisation.

Streaky

And, speaking as a forensic scientist specialising in digital evidence, NOT ONE of those sources can actually show WHO read or deleted or did anything else to the e-mail anyway. They are all purely electronic in nature and contain no reliable way of identifying the human component. Remarkably similar to the private parking enforcement problem, really.

[DonnyMac]

streaky said:

DonnyMac said:

Andydurham said:

Email does not give proof of receipt unless it is replied to directly.

Hi Andy, I don't like to disagree with a fellow PHer, but... this is not correct, not by a long shot.

I track 10's of millions of emails every day, and have provided audit trails of receipt without the recipients knowledge.

This may or may not have any impact on the OPs assertion that they did not receive the 'reminder', however, if the sender was using a service similar to mine, they'll have an audit trail of it being opened which can be referenced within seconds and is legally recognised.

I'll happily explain if required.

All the best,
Donny

Assuming standard email services are used, the best that can be achieved from the sender's end using is to demonstrate that the email was sent. With access further along the transmission path, it is possible to demonstrate that it was received by the recipient's email service provider. Without access to the recipient's computer it is not possible to demonstrate that they received and opened the email.

An email could be intercepted by the intended recipient's email service provider as potentially 'spam' and put in a separate folder (which might be set to auto-delete after a period of time). An email passing this test might still be trapped as 'spam' by the recipient's email engine (e.g. Outlook) or anti-spam software, and consigned to the 'Junk' or 'Spam' folder or even automatically deleted. There might be rules running within the recipient's email client that automatically delete emails with words in the Subject or Sender fields.

The recipient's liability for receipt in these instances has not (AFAIK) been tested in law. If the recipient has not set up such anti-spam filtering themselves, they might be able to argue that it is viable for them to repudiate receipt of an email subject to such filter(s). However, if they turned on the anti-spam filtering, they might be on a stickier wicket; and certainly would be if they had set up such filtering rules.

Setting aside intermediate gateways, there are at least 16 potential sources of evidence for the transmission and receipt of emails:
1) The sender's email client.
2) The sender's email server.
3) The sender's email gateway.
4) The sender's Internet gateway.
5) The addressee's email service provider's Internet gateway (in).
6) The addressee's email service provider's email gateway (in).
7) The addressee's email service provider's email server (in).
8) The addressee's email service provider's email server (out).
9) The addressee's email service provider's email gateway (out).
10) The addressee's email service provider's Internet gateway (out).
11) The addressee's Internet gateway (if logged).
12) The addressee's email gateway (if logged).
13) The addressee's email server (if used).
14) The addressee's email client (if used).
15) The addressee's Internet browser cache (if webmail used).
16) The addressee's computer filespace and "deleted" filespace.

Only some of these are accessible without a warrant or other authorisation.

Streaky

Thanks for all that - you are however, wrong. We do this for a living and your email can be confirmed opened by your machine, uniquely identified with a time/date stamp, confirm what systems you are running and where on the planet you where when you opened it.

You may not know about this, nor like it, it does not make it any less true though.

[JustinP1]

DonnyMac said:

Thanks for all that - you are however, wrong. We do this for a living and your email can be confirmed opened by your machine, uniquely identified with a time/date stamp, confirm what systems you are running and where on the planet you where when you opened it.

You may not know about this, nor like it, it does not make it any less true though.

However, unless that system also takes a photographic snapshot of the person reading and therefore accepting the email or terms, then the fact that a document is opened is of little legal use.

In *any* case, in contract law 'silence' should never indicate acceptance. Which is why as I stated above think that in signing up to the service, the original agreement I believe would be that it would be an ongoing service unless the other party acts to cancel the contract.

[DonnyMac]

Hi JP1, my post was in response to someone above mentioning you cannot confirm an email was delivered without them replying, which is not the case; I have no view on how this information may or may not effect the OP - just letting people know what is tecnically possible.

ublic service quota reached for today:

[tank slapper]

DonnyMac said:

Thanks for all that - you are however, wrong. We do this for a living and your email can be confirmed opened by your machine, uniquely identified with a time/date stamp, confirm what systems you are running and where on the planet you where when you opened it.

You may not know about this, nor like it, it does not make it any less true though.

So you can still do this if my mail client is Mutt can you?

[TM99]

DonnyMac said:

streaky said:

DonnyMac said:

Andydurham said:

Email does not give proof of receipt unless it is replied to directly.

Hi Andy, I don't like to disagree with a fellow PHer, but... this is not correct, not by a long shot.

I track 10's of millions of emails every day, and have provided audit trails of receipt without the recipients knowledge.

This may or may not have any impact on the OPs assertion that they did not receive the 'reminder', however, if the sender was using a service similar to mine, they'll have an audit trail of it being opened which can be referenced within seconds and is legally recognised.

I'll happily explain if required.

All the best,
Donny

Assuming standard email services are used, the best that can be achieved from the sender's end using is to demonstrate that the email was sent. With access further along the transmission path, it is possible to demonstrate that it was received by the recipient's email service provider. Without access to the recipient's computer it is not possible to demonstrate that they received and opened the email.

An email could be intercepted by the intended recipient's email service provider as potentially 'spam' and put in a separate folder (which might be set to auto-delete after a period of time). An email passing this test might still be trapped as 'spam' by the recipient's email engine (e.g. Outlook) or anti-spam software, and consigned to the 'Junk' or 'Spam' folder or even automatically deleted. There might be rules running within the recipient's email client that automatically delete emails with words in the Subject or Sender fields.

The recipient's liability for receipt in these instances has not (AFAIK) been tested in law. If the recipient has not set up such anti-spam filtering themselves, they might be able to argue that it is viable for them to repudiate receipt of an email subject to such filter(s). However, if they turned on the anti-spam filtering, they might be on a stickier wicket; and certainly would be if they had set up such filtering rules.

Setting aside intermediate gateways, there are at least 16 potential sources of evidence for the transmission and receipt of emails:
1) The sender's email client.
2) The sender's email server.
3) The sender's email gateway.
4) The sender's Internet gateway.
5) The addressee's email service provider's Internet gateway (in).
6) The addressee's email service provider's email gateway (in).
7) The addressee's email service provider's email server (in).
8) The addressee's email service provider's email server (out).
9) The addressee's email service provider's email gateway (out).
10) The addressee's email service provider's Internet gateway (out).
11) The addressee's Internet gateway (if logged).
12) The addressee's email gateway (if logged).
13) The addressee's email server (if used).
14) The addressee's email client (if used).
15) The addressee's Internet browser cache (if webmail used).
16) The addressee's computer filespace and "deleted" filespace.

Only some of these are accessible without a warrant or other authorisation.

Streaky

Thanks for all that - you are however, wrong. We do this for a living and your email can be confirmed opened by your machine, uniquely identified with a time/date stamp, confirm what systems you are running and where on the planet you where when you opened it.

You may not know about this, nor like it, it does not make it any less true though.

Nonsense.

You may be able to tell when an email was read by for example, embedding an image with a name unique to that email, and some process to track when each image was requested)

However this would not work in all cases (eg where images display is disabled on the mail client)

And even at that, as has been said, you cannot tell whether it was me, or my cat who opened that email.

[onomatopoeia]

DonnyMac said:

Thanks for all that - you are however, wrong. We do this for a living and your email can be confirmed opened by your machine, uniquely identified with a time/date stamp, confirm what systems you are running and where on the planet you where when you opened it.

You may not know about this, nor like it, it does not make it any less true though.

I can't think of any way to achieve this that will work across all operating systems and MUAs (Mail User Agents, e.g. Outlook, Thunderbird, PINE, telnet into port 110 etc).