Good Example Of Essay On Current Events Or Current Issues Related To Contract Laws

Introduction

As the contract becomes more complex (involvement of more than two persons) (third parties) the chances of issues and conflicts rises as well. The law provides many rights for such third parties, and sometimes it becomes very difficult to identify and assess those rights. The laws can also be amended, and additions can be possible. For this reason, new issues are always expected regarding these laws. The procedure begins with the introduction of the issue of the legislative bodies and ends up with the courts orders. Sometimes the companies sue other companies in order to get their rights under the contract laws, and also individuals can sue other individuals, as well as the companies. The courts then analyze and find the solutions and reveal them within their decisions, all such decisions are binding enforceable.
In this paper, the contract laws related to the Insurance, Third Party rights and Contract laws and the Estate laws linked with cyberspace and also the terms and conditions of dating sites are discussed. These issues are most recent i.e. 2010-2015, these include the cases that have caused amendments to the Contract Law and some new additions to the Law.
1)

The Insurance Contract Bill: Amendments related to the rights of Third Parties against the Insurer 2014

The issue relates to the Insurance Contract Law and the possible amendments and additions to the discourse of Business and Insurance. Such as the sections including the warranties, the remedies provided to the insurer regarding fake claims and other sections of late payments.
The Bill includes all of our recommendations apart from the clause relating to late payment: The need for reform related to the Business Insurance is the core objective of the bill. There are some points that needed to enlighten, and this need was recognized by the HM Treasury (Her Majesty’s Treasury) located in the United Kingdom. It is a government department that is working for the British government to maintain its finances related to the public and the economic policies. The bill was initiated by the legislatures (parliament) on the 17th of July 2014.
The provisions regarding the rights of third parties against the insurers “Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 in relation to the insured persons to whom that Act applies” needed amendments. And this bill is in the “Second Reading Committee” for the purpose of a ‘second thorough reading debate’. The announced date for the second reading debate is the 26th of January 2015. Before this it was put into consideration of the “House of Lords” and it completed the process time duration on the 15th Jan after that it was forwarded to the “House of Commons” on the 16th Jan (also known as the 1st reading, there were no debates on the bill in the House of Commons). This bill is still pending in the legislative process, and the implementation process will start after its completion and the final court order. To make the process a bit faster the joint review teams of the “Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission” are being established that are working together for the debates and further processing of the bill.
The completion of the process (acceptance of the Bill) will describe and amend the rules and laws related to the rights of the Third Parties against the Issuer. It will help to get rid of future conflicts and issues that may arise from the misconduct of Issuers and sometimes the Third parties themselves (Woofter, 2014; Milazzo, 2014).
2)

Yahoo! And Yahoo! Email User 2014

The underlying case/issue is related to the Contract laws and the Estate laws linked with cyberspace. It is a very interesting issue as most of the people use the online services offered by different organizations. The Terms of Service (TOS) that are provided by the companies for online emails and other usable things are the point matter, in this case. The court decision and the overall outcome are explained.
The issue was discovered by a Yahoo! Email user, which was related to the “Terms of Service” (TOS) regarding the services that are provided for free by Yahoo! Company. It was related to attaining the approval of the court to have access to an account and also to have a notice of the content of that particular email user. The case was brought to California, as the terms and conditions or TOS by Yahoo described that every conflict/dispute must be heard in California.
The case was heard in “Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court” (MSJC) Massachusetts, United States. MSJC is the biggest and highest of the courts in the Massachusetts city. The parties involved in the case were the Yahoo! Company and the Yahoo! Email User. No charges were charged to any of the parties, but he court announced its verdict against the Yahoo! Company.
The case was introduced, and the court analyzed the “liability clauses” that Yahoo! provided in its online contracts and agreements. The court found out that if the clauses were properly communicated by the “Company” in its TOS contracts and accepted by the “User” then the provisions could be implemented and if not then the company cannot check and cannot access the email accounts of the user. The point raised was needed to be checked, and the court investigated for the TOS offered by Yahoo! Company online for its users. The courts classified the process of investigation in two steps, firstly the design of the TOS and secondly the reasonability of the TOS and its appearance to the users.
It was concluded that Yahoo! Company was unable to represent the TOS in a reasonable manner; it was not presented in the way it should have been done. The claims of Yahoo! were rejected by the court related to the user limitation and liability Clauses. The specifications were not displayed, and the users were unable to understand the significance of the clauses. The TOS of Yahoo! was rejected by the court and amendments were delivered, the court also refused to the extension of “Brows wrap Agreements” since the agreements claimed by Yahoo! were not displayed properly.
The court also ordered that there was no enforceability of the TOS against the “Estate Administrators” as there was no existence of Third Parties and beneficiaries. The TOS consisted of unreasonable and broad clauses that were rejected and needed to be amended.
Yahoo! Company was held liable for the case. For this reason, the burden was declared on Yahoo! (the plaintiff of the case). This case would help a lot in the future as due to the use of internet is expanding and the rules are not well established. Such cases will benefit the customers and the companies in a way to prosper effectively and efficiently without abiding the Laws (Medeiros, 2013; Cherry, 2013).
$16M Judgment against Positive Dating Site 2014
The current event deals with the use of dating sites and the way the sites show their agreements and conditions (online businesses). It is a crucial issue as more people are starting to use the Internet and such sites (dating sites) the issue is expanding with the size of the users. The court took notice on the case by a user of such site and decided a $16 Million Verdict against the site. The use of dating sites has been increased in the last couple of years, and the users are increasing day by day. The user ids and other profile essentials are acquired by the site and then processed and used in other sites the user has not used. It is the case that made the courts takes actions against the particular dating site, and the results were announced to the public.
The site that was sued, for this reason, is “PositiveMatch.com” and it is the mother site for many others (Deafs.com, SeniorMatch.com, BikerKiss.com, EquestrianCupid.com, and SuccessfulMatch.com. This site is from Canada and people all over Canada use this site to find a match for their dates.
The parties involved in this case were the user of a site called “SuccessfulMatch.com” and the Business itself. The case was introduced to the court when the User got linked to other sites. He was only a user of ‘SuccessfulMatch.com’ but the company/site provided the user details to other Third Party sites. It is the strategy of the company to create new links and the expansion of their current business into other categories. The court took notice of the issue and found the site guilty and charged a $16 M verdict against them. The court examined the case very carefully and found that the terms and the assurance of anatomy were present on the site, but the users were not able to pick and understand those terms and conditions. The user only knew that their credentials are safe and used the sites peacefully. The court simply announced its verdict against the site and the site has to rectify its policies related to this matter. The case has been heard, and the decision is announced, there is nothing left pending. The decision of the court is binding on both the parties (Helveston & Jacobs, 2014).

Conclusion

It is concluded that all the scenarios discussed in this paper are important in our daily lives. We should concentrate and properly check the Terms of Services and also the Terms and Conditions before using any online site or service. There are many terms and conditions which require understanding before using a service from a website or using information provided on any website. There could be situations where accidently the user can breach terms and conditions of the use of website. Moreover, without knowing terms and conditions the users can share their private or confidential data which is collected by the website under its arrangement. When such cases come across then, we realize the importance of such issues. It gives us the importance of laws and the use of laws in our daily lives. These Laws can help us avoid errors and conflicts in the potential future.

References List

Cherry, M. A. (2013). Learning Contracts through Current Events: Lawrence Cunningham's Contracts in the Real World: Stories of Popular Contracts and Why They Matter. University of Hawai'i Law Review, 35, 129.
Helveston, M., & Jacobs, M. (2014). The Incoherent Role Of Bargaining Power In Contract Law. Wake Forest Law Review, 49(4), 1017-1058.
Medeiros, J. (2013). Current Public Law And Policy Issues: Immigration After DOMA: How Equal is Marriage Equality? Hamline Journal of Public Law & Policy, 35, 196.
Milazzo, M. J. (2014). Facebook, Privacy, And Reasonable Notice: The Public Policy Problems With Facebook's Current Sign-Up Process And How To Remedy The Legal Issues. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 23, 661.
Woofter, D. H. (2014). Current Developments 2013-2014: The 'Attorney-Law Firm' Privilege: Protecting Intra-Firm Communications Regarding a Current Client's Potential Malpractice Claim. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 27, 987.