1

I often browse web sites that offer me contract terms via "browse-wrap": there is a link on the page to a "Terms of Service" or similar, and my browsing the web site, having had notice that there are terms that apply, forms a contract between me and the server operator.

But the HTTP protocol sends information two ways; a response can contain a link to a page of terms, but a web request can also contain a link to a page of terms.

If I configure my web browser to send notice of a contract offer and set of terms to the operators of the web sites I visit, as part of my web requests, and propose that the server operator can accept my terms by replying to my web request (or otherwise allowing me to browse the site), and the web site operator returns the information I requested and allows me to browse the site as normal, have the server operator and I formed a contract?

If not, why not?

interfect
  • 3,471
  • 17
  • 34
  • 1
    "...web site operator returns the information I requested .." Are you talking about the actual human behind the website who responds, or are you talking about the simple automated http response that responds to all http requests? – BlueDogRanch May 24 '23 at 15:05
  • 1
    I your question may already be covered in Is a contract valid if one of the party doesn't even read it?. – Brian May 24 '23 at 16:27
  • "and my browsing the web site, having had notice that there are terms that apply, forms a contract between me and the server operator" that seems like something that would never hold up in court in the first place, making your question moot. – nvoigt May 25 '23 at 05:15
  • @nvoigt you would think so, but within limits courts have apparently upheld this method of contract formation. See for example https://law.stackexchange.com/a/84812 – interfect Jun 02 '23 at 15:03
  • @BlueDogRanch I mean the legal person here, I think, who is sending the response, with the assistance of their server software. They in many cases have already empowered that software to form contracts with me on their behalf, by having it host terms and saying a contract is formed if I interact with it in certain ways. And they empower my browser software to form contracts with them; I don't seem to be able to say that I don't accept sending my browser to a site as a method of contract formation. – interfect Jun 02 '23 at 15:10
  • @interfect That is a two line answer with no sources, claiming "general" applicability, across all juristictions. That doesn't strike you as maybe a little to vague/broad? I would not believe anything I read on the internet, unless it has at least a quote of a law or court decision linked. Just because people can press "post answer" on Stack Exchange, doesn't make it fact. You haven't agreed to a contract, unless you agree to a contract. If someone wants to hold you to a TOS, they better not let you enter their site and do stuff, until you have agreed to it. – nvoigt Jun 02 '23 at 15:27
  • @nvoigt So browse-wrap agreements in either direction are equally ineffective?

    Now I want to open another question about methods of not letting people enter a site unless they agree to a legal contract, and what happens if they do not genuinely agree to the contract but convince the computer to let them in anyway.

     – interfect Jun 05 '23 at 15:18
  • It's hard to prove a negative. I don't know of any case where they would have been binding in my juristiction, maybe someone else has one for theirs. I'm not from the US, that you asked about though. But the absence of any answer indicates to me, that there is no answer, because it isn't binding in the US either. – nvoigt Jun 05 '23 at 15:23

0 Answers0