Legal Issues in E-Healthcare Systems - E-Healthcare Systems and Wireless Communications - page 39

consumers who received supply of services. The
distinction between goods and services created
problem for e-consumers who are involved in
buying digitalised services. The protection granted
under the Convention applies only to consumer
contracts that have an adequate connection with
the consumer's place of domicile. The consumer
may only sue a vendor when:

This step must be taken while the consumer is in
the domicile of his State.
Art.15 of the Regulation of Brussels replaces
article 13 of the Convention. Article 13 was
considered lacking elements to address e-related
issues. Therefore the EU countries had adopted
Brussels II in the year 2000 to address those
weaknesses and to provide special protection to
e-consumers considering their vulnerability and
unequal bargaining power. According to Article
15 of the Brussels II, the courts of the country
of the consumer's domicile has jurisdiction in a
dispute concerning a consumer. The Article states
that in matters relating to contract concluded
by a person, the consumer , for a purpose which
can be regarded as being his trade or profession,
jurisdiction shall be determined by this section
without prejudice to Article 4 and 5 (5) if:

1. The vendor has directed his commercial
activity towards the State of the consumer's
domicile;
2. The consumer resided in the State at the time
when he entered into the contract;
3. There is a close connection between the con-
tract and the State of Consumer's domicile
such that;
4. The consumer has a reasonable expectation
of being able to sue in his or her local court
(Foss, and Bygrave, n.d.) 1. It is a contract for the sale of goods on instal-

ment credit terms;
2. It is a contract for a loan repayable by instal-
ments, or for any other form of credit, made
to finance the sale of goods; or
3. In all other cases, the contract has been
concluded with a person who pursues com-
mercial or professional activities in the
Member State of the consumer's domicile
or, by any means, directs such activities to
that Member State, and the contract falls
within the scope of such activities.

A consumer who is situated in his own country
of domicile when entering into a contract with
a foreign vendor should usually be entitled to
the local courts. If marketing is done via e-mail,
this activity could be considered as directed at
the state indicated by the e-mail address of the
addressee. For example, 'ae' represents United
Arab Emirates. In the case where the address
to which the e-mail is sent does not have any
indication to a country like ae or my, the vendor
should be regarded as directing the e-mail to the
addressee's place of domicile, as the e-mail will
be read in the country of domicile of the recipient.
To determine the place where marketing occurs,
it is important to determine the place where the
marketing activities spreads but not where the
vendor's marketing activity begins. Article 13(1)
(3) (b) requires that a customer must take in the
State of his domicile 'the steps necessary for the
conclusion of the contract'. The steps may be the
consumer is typing on a computer keyboard or
clicking with a mouse. The steps must be those
that are indispensable for conducting the contract.

Where a consumer enters into a contract with
a party who is not domiciled in a member State
but has a branch, agency or other establishment
in one of the member State, that party shall, in
disputes arising out of the operations of that branch,
establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that
Member State.
The Brussels II had deleted Article 13(3) (b)
of the Brussels Convention as this provision of
the Article did not seem to cover the situation
where a consumer is habitually resident in one
State but concludes a contract while in another