Legal Issues in E-Healthcare Systems - E-Healthcare Systems and Wireless Communications - page 35

even if it is less formal than written still can be
considered binding if the parties can prove that
they had the intention to be bound by law.
Standard forms of contracts which are drawn
by one party in a contract, normally by a stronger
party like a vendor or medical institute or an insur-
ance company, are accepted as valid provided that
they are conscionable. The validity of such terms
may depend on the following elements:

code, and algorithms that lack any “fixed” status.
The US Uniform Computer Information Act in
section 201 avoids the usage of word “writing”,
and uses “records” instead. The term “record” is
more appropriate to online contracts as it retains
the tangible form and it includes any information
that is stored in an electronic or other medium
which is retrievable in perceivable form. When it
is retrieved the information may be temporary but
capable of being recalled from a computer memory
(L.Kidd & Daughtrey, 2000). The initiative taken
by the US legislature will smooth the concerns of
the e-consumers and the retailers and eventually
boost the confidence of using e-health system.
In an online transaction the users of e-health
systems faces variety of scams and fraudulent
“merchant” on the net (Australian Commotion &
Consumer Commission, 1997). Pyramid schemes,
chain letter, bogus business opportunities, miracle
health or diet products to name a few of such
fraudulent trading. While it can be argued that
the examples of online scams and fraudulent
merchant behavior stated above are in some way
special since their mere contest should make
users suspicious. There are other types of fraud
that can occur in any “everyday” transaction. The
clearest cases are where the goods or the services
the patients paid for were never delivered. Since
setting up a web-based 'shop' requires no much
of start-up investment and incurs very low operat-
ing costs, the Internet appears to provide perfect
environment for unethical trader (Federal Trade
Commission, 1998). They can simply design a
website offering various products or services that
they do not actually have or can provide, or never
intend to deliver. Before the victims realize the
actual fact the 'shop' might already have closed
down and “reopened” under different name and
design targeting different users.
Sometimes the fraudster does not set up her
own online shop, but assumes the identity of a
well known company and accepts orders and
payments for products and services. This shows
that there is a high possibility that the online users

1. The respective bargaining powers of the
contracting parties,
2. Whether the purchaser is being required
to comply with regulations which are
unnecessary,
3. Whether the purchaser duly understands the
terms,
4. Whether undue influence or unfair tactic is
being exercised, and
5. Whether the purchaser or consumer has any
chance to get a similar service elsewhere.

If all the conditions are fulfilled the court
may enforce a standard form of contract. In UK
the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1976 regulates
the standard terms of contract. Usually, the court
will not enforce a standard form of contract if the
terms are not reasonable and the customers or
purchasers are not aware of such terms.
In e- contract, the issue is that whether the
courts will consider online or other digital contracts
as “writing”. The UK court in Derby & Co. Ltd.
v. Weldon (No.6) [1991] 1 W.L.R. 652, held that
computer databases (files) are valid documents and
admissible in court. The US courts also attempted
to extend writing to include digital forms. These
decisions suggest that online and other digital
contracts are “writing”.
Another issue to be addressed is whether
electronic form of contracts can be considered
as “writing”. The electronic or online contracts
exist only in computer memories or screens.
They are not a deduction to a tangible form but
are intangible composite of electronic, computer